BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Transport for London (Supplemental Toll Provisions) [Lords]

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Wednesday 7 September.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Open University

Iain Stewart: When he next plans to meet the vice-chancellor of the Open university.

David Willetts: I meet representatives of the Open university regularly. My most recent meeting, covering a range of issues, took place earlier this week. The Open university has, of course, particularly welcomed the extension of loans to part-time students, which will benefit up to 175,000 students overall, including many from the Open university.

Iain Stewart: Some 20% of the newest undergraduates at the Open university come from the 25% most disadvantaged communities in the country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the widening participation allocation is crucial to delivering results and will be essential to widening access in the future?

David Willetts: Yes. My hon. Friend is referring to something that, in many ways, is the equivalent of the pupil premium in schools. The Higher Education Funding Council for England is now consulting on how best to deliver the money in future, but we have made it clear that it is very important to reflect the additional costs that under-represented groups face.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Open university the only happy university at the moment? I note the 10% increase in the number of its
	students, but what about the rest? Most of the vice-chancellors I talk to are very unhappy about the destabilisation of the sector and cannot see their way forward.

David Willetts: The hon. Gentleman does higher education a great disservice. In my experience, vice-chancellors are looking forward to the challenge of attracting students and know that one in four students will be bringing their money to the university that they choose, as we push back the quotas. They also see that in our White Paper we envisage universities having 10% more cash coming to them in four years’ time than they have now.

Mr Speaker: May I just remind the House that the question is specifically about the Open university? I know that that is what the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench will be asking his question about.

Gareth Thomas: I am always grateful for your helpful advice, Mr Speaker.
	As the Minister reflects on his important meeting with the vice-chancellor of the Open university this week and as he worries, too, about the number of would-be students set to be turned away from university this summer on his watch, can he tell the House which of the following he is most proud of? Is it the decisions that have already been taken by the Government to axe 24,000 student places? Is it his plan to axe another 20,000 places at quality universities in order to fund an auction to the lowest bidder? Or is it his claim that universities charging the full £9,000 would be the exception?

David Willetts: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of becoming the mad axeman. There are no 24,000 places being axed—he has invented that figure. What we have been able to do, even in tough times and even when we are reducing spending across the board, is broadly maintain the number of student places.

Green Investment

Anas Sarwar: What assessment he has made of the effects on growth of green investment; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Flynn: What assessment he has made of the effects on growth of green investment; and if he will make a statement.

Vincent Cable: In the transformation to a green economy, low-carbon industries will grow, while other sectors will face significant challenges from increased energy prices. There could be significant transitional costs in the near term, but those could be manageable, with targeted Government action. We have committed to announcing in the autumn a package of measures to reduce the impact of Government policy on electricity costs for energy-intensive manufacturers whose international competitiveness is most affected by our energy and climate change policies.

Anas Sarwar: Ernst and Young’s latest survey found that only 8% of renewable energy professionals said that they were optimistic that the Government would establish the conditions for success in the next 12 months and that only 14% of those surveyed expected significant growth and new jobs, which is a decrease from last November’s figure of 65%. Is it not clear that the Government are undermining confidence in growth in this important sector and are costing real jobs at a difficult time for our economy?

Vincent Cable: The renewable energy sector will, of course, be given confidence and clarity as a result of the electricity market review, which my colleague the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change launched this week, and it will be given further confidence by the investments of the green investment bank, which will take shape in the coming months.

Paul Flynn: Why have the Government inexplicably cut the investment in tidal power by 50%, given that the immense power of the tide in my constituency is the second greatest in the world? We have this vast resource, with huge potential. It is green and inexhaustible, yet the Government refuse to invest in it. Should they not give the powers to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, which thoroughly understand the potential of tidal power?

Vincent Cable: Tidal power may well have an important role to play in the long-term development of renewables and that is why it is one of the components of the new technology innovation centre that will focus on renewable energy.

Simon Wright: To unlock the full growth potential of the green investment bank, the UK will need to secure state aid approval. What progress is the Secretary of State’s Department making to obtain that approval and to ensure that the legislation is introduced as soon as possible?

Vincent Cable: The proposals are at such a stage that they are being referred to the European Union for state aid approval. Legislation will follow, but in the meantime the Department will be able to make available loans and other forms of investment under the green investment bank, as we originally envisaged.

Ian Lucas: Clear regulatory frameworks are essential to facilitate green investment. The construction industry, which is flat on its back at the moment because of the Government’s policy, is desperate to take forward the green deal but it does not know the rules of the game. When will it have some clarity from the Government to facilitate investment and build jobs and growth?

Vincent Cable: The answer to that question will be included in the green economy road map that will be announced at the end of this month. It involves a process of collaboration across Government by my Department, the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in discussion with business and trade unions that will provide a consensus framework within which such decisions can be pursued.

Regulation (EU Directives)

Laurence Robertson: What progress he has made on reducing regulatory burdens on business arising from EU directives.

Edward Davey: I am pleased to have this opportunity to remind the House of our recent successes. The recent political agreement to exempt micro-enterprises from onerous accounting and financial reporting obligations should save British companies between £150 million and £300 million a year. Thanks to the UK’s persistent efforts, a further commitment from the Commission to introduce proposals to exempt micros from new and existing legislation was also secured at the European Council in June.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Minister for that response. Is he aware of the EU waste electrical and electronic equipment directive, which requires all showers that are not fitted to be registered through a costly system, whereas those which are considered to be fitted need not be registered? There is a great debate about what constitutes a fitted shower. Such nonsense is not helping British business or jobs. Is that really why we put so much money into the EU?

Edward Davey: I am delighted to be able to tell the House that I am now aware of that issue, because I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s written question on it. He is right that the scope of the EU waste electrical and electronic equipment directive has been problematic since its adoption at the end of 2002. For example, there is no reference in the directive to exemption for fixed installations, but the European Commission’s guidance does allow for one in its interpretation of article 2(1). European negotiations on a recast of the regional directive are under way and we hope for greater clarity on that and other scope issues once a new directive is agreed.

Stephen Metcalfe: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but will he also assure me that he will do all he can to reduce any home-grown regulatory burden that might crop up, especially for small and micro-businesses?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that in the Chancellor’s Budget we announced a three-year moratorium on regulations for micros. We have also set up the red tape challenge. We are dealing not just with future regulation but with the stock of regulation, an exercise that was long overdue.

Engineering

John Spellar: What steps he has taken to support the engineering industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mark Prisk: The Government are actively supporting engineering and manufacturing by boosting innovation, increasing business investment, improving skills and encouraging exports.

John Spellar: I thank the Minister for the departmental mission statement, but the reality is that the Thameslink contract is being given to Siemens without even getting the company to build in the UK. The Minister cannot hide behind EU rules, because the French buy only from France and the Germans buy only from Germany—and the last time I looked they were in the EU. Will he stand up for British industry at last, meet the Transport Secretary before the contract is signed and ensure that we keep train building in the UK at its historic home in Derby?

Mark Prisk: We are concerned for those workers in Derby and that is why we have already taken prompt action. I welcome the support of local Members, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the contract’s tendering rules were set in 2008 and you were responsible as a party for the first two years of the contract. I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that 1.7 million jobs were lost in manufacturing under the previous Labour Government.

Mr Speaker: Order. I remind the Minister that I was not responsible for any such contract at all. I am entirely innocent in the matter.

Gavin Williamson: In South Staffordshire in the past year we have had considerable success in attracting engineering manufacturing jobs, but I am constantly being told that we do not have enough engineering graduates coming out of colleges and universities after 13 years of Labour government. What are we doing to rectify that?

Mark Prisk: Absolutely right—what we, rather than yourself, Mr Speaker, are doing about it is making sure that we have apprenticeships in place and that we put vocational education, which was neglected by the Labour party, back on a proper footing. We are also making sure that people are able to transfer between engineering firms. There is good news to be told.

Local Enterprise Partnerships

Tony Baldry: What progress he has made on local enterprise partnerships; and if he will make a statement.

Mark Prisk: Both the number and activity of local enterprise partnerships is continuing to rise. Dorset is the latest to be cleared, bringing the total to 36—or 97% of the country. Of those, 18 now have full board recognition and have begun their work.

Tony Baldry: I am sorry to ask my hon. Friend what I suspect will be perceived as an unhelpful question, but local enterprise partnerships are going to have to raise their game seriously if they are to have any traction or impact. I am sorry to have to report to him that, so far, they seem to have no traction or impact in my area of the country.

Mark Prisk: I am disappointed by my hon. Friend’s comments. I have visited 25 of the 36 LEPs and they are already setting up boards to make sure that they are ready to involve small businesses. Now they are going to
	be able to lead on enterprise zones, lead on the regional growth fund and make sure that we strip away some of the local regulatory problems on the ground, which I am afraid the Labour party did nothing about.

Adrian Bailey: As LEPs are business-driven, they could have businesses working with local authorities and local education providers to provide a much better and more localised match of skills needs and skills provision. Can the Minister say how many LEPs are taking that responsibility on and whether any examples of best practice will be rolled out with other LEPs?

Mark Prisk: It is encouraging that almost all the LEPs that I have visited have demonstrated that they are involving FE colleges in their programmes. The hon. Gentleman is right that that is crucial. They are ideally suited to get FE colleges producing what local businesses need; that is one of the crucial projects that at least half a dozen of them have already begun.

Andrew Percy: The pan-Humber local enterprise partnership is now up and running and it has recently put in a bid for a local enterprise zone across the Humber, which will be based around the renewables sector. As a result, the area covered by that potential enterprise zone is quite large. Can the Minister give an assurance that its size—and the need for it to be of that size given that it will be structured around the renewable energy industry—will be taken into account?

Mark Prisk: Absolutely; the key issue is the added value. The case will be judged on such merit and we will not seek to preclude anything on, perhaps, spurious grounds.

Chi Onwurah: According to recent OECD research, the single most important factor in regional growth is innovation, but LEPs do not even have responsibility for that, let alone any money, and it is not even mentioned in the regional growth fund criteria. The £440 million that the regional development agencies invested annually in regional innovation is gone, the Technology Strategy Board’s new strategy makes no reference to it and in any case it still does not have a budget for next year. I know that the Secretary of State enjoys chaotic Maoism, but does regional growth not merit a more coherent approach?

Mark Prisk: The hon. Lady is ignoring the fact that we have made sure that the science budget is retained and strengthened, and that we are putting £200 million into technology and innovation centres. When we look at individual schemes and the regional growth fund, we see that £2 million is being put into 3D printing, which is a vital technology for this country—we lead on it and we are investing in it.

Azerbaijan (Investment)

Mark Field: How much outward investment to Azerbaijan was supported by his Department in (a) 2009-10 and (b) 2010-11. [R]

Edward Davey: I would like to thank my hon. Friend for the work he is doing as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Azerbaijan to develop the relationship between our two countries. I am pleased to say that more than 100 exporting and investing companies have been assisted in Azerbaijan through UK Trade & Investment in the past two financial years alone.

Mark Field: I thank the Minister for his answer. As he will be well aware, over those past two years there has been compound double-digit growth in Azerbaijan. Is he convinced that his Department is doing enough in two specific areas—the fledgling financial services industry in Azerbaijan and infrastructure investment, on which our companies could add a lot in that part of the world?

Edward Davey: Across the Government, our new approach to commercial diplomacy is working in all those areas. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe visited Baku last year and took with him a number of companies involved in the infrastructure project. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the British music industry will take all the possible opportunities presented by the Eurovision song contest being held in Azerbaijan next year, and that they are not “Running Scared”.

Green Investment Bank

David Mowat: Which locations he is considering for the headquarters of the green investment bank.

Mark Prisk: Ministers will consider all submitted business cases for a potential location for the green investment bank. To date, London, Edinburgh and Bristol have made representations. However, others might wish to do so, and once state aid approval is granted, Ministers will choose a location that best enables the bank to fulfil its mission.

David Mowat: I thank the Minister for that reply. When the Secretary of State announced the bank in May, it was stated that there was a shortlist of the three locations that have been mentioned, two of which are capital cities. Further to the reply today, can the Minister confirm that the selection process will be based on rigorous and transparent criteria and that other towns and cities will be judged on their merits?

Mark Prisk: Absolutely—those three are merely early applicants, not a shortlist. All proposals will be considered on a fair and open basis.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am sure that the Minister will understand the strong case for the bank to be based in Edinburgh, but can he confirm that the bank will not end up just taking up the cuts made elsewhere in Government expenditure? I was concerned by the earlier suggestion that wave power could be funded by the green investment bank. I hope that the bank will provide new, additional funding for greener industries and not just pick up slack elsewhere.

Mark Prisk: Indeed; we have trebled the amount that the Labour party originally proposed to £3 billion. So, yes, additional funds are very much in place.

Stephen Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that, ideally, the home of the green investment bank will have a mix of commercial and ethical banking, a strong network of professional services firms, green non-governmental organisations, charities and sustainable businesses? That strongly suggests that the city of Bristol is the ideal home for the green investment bank.

Mark Prisk: We duly note that excellent representation.

Lindsay Roy: Can the Minister identify the key criteria in the selection process for the green investment bank location?

Mark Prisk: I have just set out that, in fact, the process is under way for the rules and criteria. The location, which is obviously the issue at hand, is one that we will bear in mind when we see the business cases. The key issue is what will deliver the best result for the bank itself.

Apprenticeships

Henry Smith: How many people in (a) Crawley constituency, (b) the south-east and (c) England have started an apprenticeship in 2011.

Vincent Cable: In the first three quarters of this academic year, 550 apprenticeships were started in the Crawley constituency, 41,890 started in the south-east region and 326,700 in England. Overall, that is 114,000 more than last year—more than a 50% increase. By the end of this spending review, there will be funding for 250,000 more adult apprenticeships than were planned by the previous Government.

Henry Smith: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Will he join me in congratulating Central Sussex college in my constituency on administering 900 apprenticeship places and Virgin Atlantic Airways on creating 42 highly skilled engineering apprenticeship places in my constituency? Does that not prove that further education and the commercial sector working together can improve the offer for apprenticeships?

Vincent Cable: Yes indeed; it does exactly that. My hon. Friend’s constituency can demonstrate that this is a real success story. There has been a 62% increase in such places in Crawley over the past year. I certainly welcome the news from Virgin Atlantic Airways about engineering apprenticeships. We have had massive shortages in this country at intermediate level and in graduate and postgraduate engineers, and we really now must buckle down to increasing the supply in this and other ways.

Space Sector

Steve Brine: What his policy is on future space travel and exploration; and if he will make a statement.

David Willetts: My hon. Friend’s question is very topical: this morning, a statue of Yuri Gagarin is being unveiled just a few hundred yards from here. It commemorates the first human space flight 50 years ago. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will wish to send their best wishes to Yuri Gagarin’s daughter, whom I will meet later today.
	In the growth review, we set out our support for innovative forms of space travel, such as Virgin Galactic, that involve British entrepreneurs and British inventors.

Steve Brine: I thank the Minister for that. He will remember the exciting HOTOL—horizontal take-off and landing—project in the 1980s, which certainly put a spring in the step of the British space industry. The single-stage-to-orbit Skylon programme looks equally promising today. I hear what the Minister says—and I send my best wishes, too—but I wonder what role an ambitious Government see for the UK in future human space travel.

David Willetts: I have visited the company to which my hon. Friend refers, and he mentions an excellent British technology that is securing a lot of private backing. The future of space travel rests much more with commercial businesses now, but I look forward to the day when Major Tim Peake, the British astronaut, makes it into space; I regularly raise the issue of that programme with the head of the European Space Agency.

Stephen Hammond: Would the Minister expand on how the UK might increase its participation in the European space business development plans?

David Willetts: We have specifically identified the space sector in the growth review, and we are committed to a major role for British business in that. Indeed, only last week we celebrated a £110 million satellite order.

Apprenticeships

Jeremy Lefroy: How many people in (a) Stafford constituency, (b) the west midlands and (c) England have started an apprenticeship in 2011.

Vincent Cable: In the first three quarters of this academic year, there have been 570 apprenticeships started in the Stafford constituency, 38,350 started in the west midlands, and 326,700 started in England.

Jeremy Lefroy: I thank the Secretary of State for his response, and I congratulate him, and the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, who is not in his place, on their achievements in delivering such strong growth in apprenticeships. Quality is also important. Will the Secretary of State share with the House the steps that his Department will take to monitor the quality of apprenticeships, and the career progression of apprentices once they complete them?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that quality is important as well as quantity, but it is important that the quality assurance is proportionate
	and does not result in excessive bureaucracy. The best evidence that apprenticeships give value for money is in the results. Typically, employers get payback in three years. An intermediate level of skill, level 2, results in, I think, £73,000 more over a lifetime. A level 3 qualification produces £105,000 added income over a lifetime, and the Government get £40 back for every £1 that they spend on apprenticeships.

Richard Burden: On the future of apprentices, has the Secretary of State yet had a chance to look at the new report from the all-party parliamentary motor group about an industry that supports 700,000 jobs and contributes £1 billion towards research and development? One of the conclusions of the report, to which Ministers in the Department have contributed through discussion, is about the skills gap in the automotive industry. The Secretary of State has referred to the skills gap in engineering before; what practical steps can he take to ensure that the issue is addressed?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman is right in the premise of his question; the automotive industry is enormously important. As he knows, some very welcome investment is taking place in the west midlands, the north-east, Luton and elsewhere. Indeed, I have been to Japan, Detroit and elsewhere to encourage that investment. He is right also that potential investors stress the need for skills. A great deal of investment is now taking place; specifically, there are the 10,000 places for advanced apprenticeships, which will be directed specifically to small and medium-sized enterprises in the supply chain of industries such as the vehicle industry.

Employment Law

Julian Smith: What progress his Department has made on its employment law review.

Edward Davey: As part of the review, we have consulted on employment tribunals and unfair dismissal, launched the employer’s charter, commissioned reviews of sickness absence and of compliance and enforcement regimes, repealed the default retirement age, introduced a moratorium for micro-businesses and start-ups, and announced that we will not proceed with the dual discrimination provision in the Equality Act 2010. We have announced future work priorities for the review, and the red tape challenge will also consider cross-Government employment-related regulations.

Julian Smith: I thank the Minister for that answer. I am really worried about the lack of engagement with the review by other Departments. Does he agree that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office also impose significant burdens on employers? May I encourage the Minister to throw his weight around with those other Departments? We have an urgent need for jobs.

Edward Davey: I assure my hon. Friend that all Departments with responsibility for employment-related legislation are contributing to the review; it is important that they
	should, if the review is to have a real impact on burdens on business. I will talk to colleagues in other Departments to ensure that they are taking a clear role in it, as I am sure that they will.

Nia Griffith: Given that the well respected Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development considers that the Government are
	“justified in seeking to reform procedures to resolve workplace disputes”,
	but suggests that
	“the decision to increase the qualifying period for rights against unfair dismissal is questionable”
	and could be
	“potentially harmful to the long-term performance of the UK economy”,
	will the Government stop using a tax on employment rights as a pathetic and unproven substitute for any real growth strategy and drop plans to increase from one to two years the qualifying time for unfair dismissal?

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady is right to quote the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development on this issue, because it supports much of the coalition Government’s better regulation agenda in this area. She will know that the unfair dismissal period is out to consultation. A number of responses are very much in favour of the proposal, but she would not expect me to prejudge the consultation today.

Apprenticeships

Nadine Dorries: How many people in (a) Mid Bedfordshire constituency, (b) the south-east midlands and (c) England have started an apprenticeship in 2011.

Vincent Cable: I am beginning to appreciate that there is a lot of heavy lifting involved in being acting Minister responsible for skills.
	In the first three quarters of this academic year, 420 apprenticeships have been started in the Mid Bedfordshire constituency. It is not possible to quantify the number of apprenticeships started in the south-east midlands region, but 28,230 have been started in the east of England.

Nadine Dorries: In 2013, Centre Parcs will be opening in my constituency, and have already turned the first sod of earth. It will need a wide variety of employees, from accountants, HR professionals and medical staff to caterers, landscape gardeners and beauticians, all of whom require skills. What will the Government do further to relieve the burden on employers who wish to take on apprentices, so that we can continue with the impressive trend that we have started already?

Vincent Cable: To reduce what is unfortunately the substantial amount of bureaucracy in this area, we are greatly simplifying the number of funding channels and the number of institutions and introducing outcome-based payments for large employers that are training providers. The point behind the hon. Lady’s question is that apprenticeships and vocational training are a great success story for employers, who are beginning to see their real
	advantages, for young people, who see benefits for their own careers, and for the Government, who have prioritised them and seen the results.

Nick de Bois: Does the Secretary of State welcome the apprenticeship initiative led by Johnson Matthey and announced this week in my constituency of 100 days for 100 new apprenticeships, the launch of which I attended, and will he recommend it to other Members as a course of action to provide support for the local economy and local new apprenticeships?

Vincent Cable: I would strongly recommend it. I believe that 24 such schemes have already been launched and more than 5,000 apprenticeships have been generated in that way. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his role in promoting it in his constituency and compliment the company, whose headquarters in Royston I visited a few weeks ago. It is a superb and innovative British manufacturing company that is exporting most of its production and investing in skills for the long term.

Women (Corporate Boards)

Claire Perry: What recent progress his Department has made on implementing the recommendations of the report of Lord Davies on female representation on corporate boards.

Vincent Cable: Lord Davies’s report rightly challenges directors and investors to increase the number of women on boards. The report is already having an impact on FTSE 100 companies; some 21% of new board members appointed since February are women, up from 13% last year, but there is scope to do more. I fully support this initiative and will shortly consult on requiring quoted companies to publish the proportion of female directors and senior executives in their organisations.

Claire Perry: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. I am sure that he is very aware of the large body of evidence, including Lord Davies’s report, that associates a higher number of women on corporate boards with higher stock price performance and corporate returns. If that is right for the private sector, it should be right for the public sector. What is he doing to encourage the number of women in financial regulation posts in particular, and could we have a female head of the green investment bank?

Vincent Cable: The starting point of the hon. Lady’s question is absolutely right, and I congratulate her on the effective pressure she brings to bear on the issue. Her central point is that having more women on boards has nothing to do with political correctness; it is about sensible economics, good business and tapping into the potential that women can bring. The force of her argument is reinforced by the statement made at the beginning of the week by leading institutional investors that they will punish companies that do not make progress in this area. I will certainly receive her CV for the green investment bank if that is what she has in mind.

Construction Industry

Diana Johnson: What recent assessment he has made of the state of the construction industry.

Mark Prisk: For three years now, construction has faced very tough times after one of the sharpest recessions ever, but there are encouraging signs. Output in May rose by 0.4%, with increases in new work for most of the construction subsectors. We have published the national infrastructure plan, for the first time in this country, with £200 billion of investment over the next five years.

Diana Johnson: The purchasing managers index for construction shows that in June employment in the UK construction industry fell at its fastest rate since January’s VAT rise, and cuts in social housing investment, particularly in areas such as mine in Hull, are not helping. Would not a temporary VAT cut help to protect these skilled construction jobs at this difficult time?

Mark Prisk: I am fascinated to see this re-presented to the House. As I recall, when the opportunity came for Labour Members to vote on it, they ducked it—they abstained. It is a shame that they do not have the courage of their convictions.

Manufacturing

Chris White: What steps he is taking to promote manufacturing.

Vincent Cable: Recent initiatives include a high-value manufacturing, technology and innovation centre, and a financial commitment that by the end of this spending review there will be funding for 250,000 more adult apprenticeships across all sectors than were planned by the previous Government, including 10,000 higher apprenticeships. We have also launched the “see inside manufacturing” initiative to promote and showcase manufacturing careers to young people.

Chris White: Given the success of the “Made By Britain” exhibition last week, will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the businesses showcased at the event and give an assurance that the Government will continue to support such initiatives in the years ahead?

Vincent Cable: Yes, it is a brilliantly successful initiative. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) on the efforts that they put into developing it, and all the hon. Members who have contributed—50 so far, I think, and I hope others will do so. We shall have a great virtual exhibition next year for the Olympics.

Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Minister aware that one of the most useful things he could do to promote British manufacturing would be to get the banks together to come up with a financing package for the Bombardier contract that matched the
	Siemens one? That is directly within his responsibilities, and I think that the package is now being negotiated. It would be something that the banks could do, for once, to back British industry instead of filling their own pockets.

Vincent Cable: The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), has already explained the background to the Bombardier contract. It was confined to very narrow tendering terms of reference that, in the circumstances, we could not avoid, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to focus on how public procurement can be used, within European rules, to support British industry. I have taken an initiative with the Secretary of State for Transport to try to make sure that, in future, tenders do reflect that priority.

Pauline Latham: Will the Secretary of State meet me and members of the Derby and Derbyshire Rail Forum to talk about how we can help those who are made redundant from Bombardier, how Bombardier can move forward and get further contracts, and how we can make sure that procurement rules benefit the people of this country as well as those abroad?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the procurement rules. As I said, we are taking an initiative to try to address an anomaly whereby Britain appears to be uniquely open in relation to other European countries. Regarding the work force who are, sadly, affected by these redundancies, I have already announced the launching of a taskforce in Derby led by a former senior executive of Rolls-Royce to try to mobilise assistance.

John Denham: At the previous Business, Innovation and Skills questions, the House united to welcome the confidence shown by Japanese, German and Indian companies in UK manufacturing through their investment in Nissan, BMW and Jaguar Land Rover, so is it not a tragedy that in the past few weeks this British Government have put their confidence in German manufacturing to provide our Thameslink trains? Will the Minister confirm Network Rail’s estimate that in addition to Crossrail, between 12% and 25% of the 12,000 trains in Britain will need replacing over the next 10 years? What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that there is a UK manufacturer capable of designing, building and winning orders for those trains?

Vincent Cable: I am surprised that the shadow Secretary of State keeps returning to this theme. I have to repeat the point that my colleague, the Secretary of State for Transport, inherited a tendering process defined in law, which, if abused, is open to judicial review and which made it absolutely imperative for him to conduct the order in the way he did. If it had been cast differently, there could have been a different outcome. We must learn from that experience. The shadow Secretary of State is absolutely right that it is in the British national interest that we have a capacity to produce locomotive equipment in this country. There will of course be a significant increase in that capacity in the north-east with the Hitachi project, but we must also ensure that future tenders for the contracts that he describes are properly constructed, which they were not in 2008.

John Denham: That was not a strategy for the future of the UK rail manufacturing industry. Does the Secretary of State not know that the factory in the north-east is there purely and simply because Labour Ministers were prepared to challenge a procurement process and get the right deal for UK manufacturing? Will he confirm that the Department for Transport could have run a separate funding competition? Will he confirm that Siemens still does not have a proven energy efficient bogie system for the new trains, while Bombardier does? Is it not the truth that these and other issues could have been used to get the best deal for UK manufacturing? Does he realise that it is not good enough to just blame the last lot and do nothing when it is his responsibility to ensure that we have a UK rail manufacturing industry to win orders?

Vincent Cable: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I know that the Secretary of State will provide a single and pithy reply to those four questions.

Vincent Cable: The shadow Secretary of State knows perfectly well that the decision to reopen the contract in relation to Hitachi was not about the tender but about the whole project. We cannot do that in the case of Thameslink—a project that was already 10 years late.

Local Enterprise Partnerships

Catherine McKinnell: What assessment he has made of the potential role of further education colleges in the work of local enterprise partnerships.

Mark Prisk: I am pleased to report that further education colleges are already playing a role with local enterprise partnerships in the north-east and elsewhere. In Yorkshire, the Leeds city region held its first skills conference with the West Yorkshire consortium of colleges and it is now setting up its own skills network. That is one of several examples.

Catherine McKinnell: I am sure that the Minister will agree that for FE colleges to contribute to local economic growth, their work forces are key. Has he engaged with Newcastle college about its plans to make 180 staff redundant and to cut the pay of some existing staff by up to £10,000 a year? Given that that is driven in part by a combination of funding cuts and Government priorities, is this not a worrying trend for the future of FE?

Mark Prisk: The hon. Lady paints a very negative picture. When I talk to local FE colleges, they say that they are delighted that we are freeing them from red tape and that they can respond to local businesses. Of course they would like additional funds, but we all know why there is no additional money any more.

Regulation and Growth (Northern Ireland)

Nigel Dodds: What recent discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on reducing regulation and promoting growth.

Mark Prisk: Ministers and officials regularly consult their equivalents in Northern Ireland. Their discussions include promoting growth and the importance of reducing regulation, including its enforcement.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Minister undertake to intensify efforts to discuss how regulation that affects Northern Ireland but is not in the remit and purview of the Northern Ireland Executive, including European regulation, may be reduced or diminished to promote growth in an area that is lagging behind other parts of the United Kingdom?

Mark Prisk: It is a priority to ensure that the red tape that the right hon. Gentleman talks about, which holds back business in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, is dealt with. That is one of the reasons we are ending gold-plating across the UK, including in Northern Ireland. I very much welcome positive ideas that come from the Northern Ireland Executive.

Regional Growth Fund

Tony Lloyd: What the outcomes were of the second round of applications to the regional growth fund; and if he will make a statement.

Vincent Cable: Bidding for round two of the fund closed on Friday 1 July and we were pleased with the positive response. There appear to have been just over 500 applications for round two, with a total ask of £3 billion. We are currently processing the detail of the bids and will release summary information on the bids later in the month.

Tony Lloyd: Given that the Secretary of State is not yet in a position to give a full account of the regional growth fund, will he give a commitment that investment in basic science and engineering, and research thereon, will be at the forefront of the regional growth strategy? In particular, will he break the establishment view that only the triangle of London, Oxford and Cambridge should get that investment, so that other parts of the country can benefit?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there has to be regional rebalancing of the economy, and that manufacturing and associated industries are at the core of any revival. It happens that the share of manufacturing is particularly high in areas such as the north-east, so they will benefit from a manufacturing recovery. I remind him that in the first round of the regional growth fund, there were nine successful bids in the north-west, generating about 7,500 jobs, including at Bruntwood in Manchester, which I think is in his constituency but is certainly in the city.

Andrew George: Will the Secretary of State ensure that in the next round of the regional growth fund, the Government take into account the national benefit of regional growth, particularly in respect of the Goonhilly earth station application, which will provide the opportunity of radio astronomy for the country as a whole? It is an issue not just of regional growth but of national opportunity.

Vincent Cable: I am sure that Lord Heseltine, Sir Ian Wrigglesworth and their team will hear my hon. Friend’s advocacy on behalf of one of the 500 projects. It sounds a very good one, and I look forward to seeing it in the pipeline.

Topical Questions

Stephen Hammond: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Mark Prisk: The Department is responsible for reducing regulation, increasing trade, growing the economy and promoting excellence in higher education and skills.

Stephen Hammond: With regard to deregulation, the Minister will have seen the report from the CEOs conference held by The Times, which suggests that an unencumbered supply side is key to growth. One of the key recommendations was moving to faster deregulation—far from one in, one out, it hoped for five out and only one in. Can he make any statement on that?

Mark Prisk: I am always keen to accelerate matters, but it is worth putting it on the record that in the past 12 months this Department alone has been able to scrap regulations that would have cost business £430 million every year. It is a good start, but, yes, we want to move forward.

Luciana Berger: In January, at a cost of £300,000, the Prime Minister stripped the Business Secretary of his responsibility for media competition and policy issues after he declared war on Rupert Murdoch. Given yesterday’s announcement by News Corp that it is dropping the bid for BSkyB, does he expect to have those powers transferred back to him at BIS?

Vincent Cable: I do not know the answer to that question, but I am delighted to discover that the whole of Britain and the House of Commons now agrees with me.

John Stevenson: Central Government clearly has a major role to play in supporting and helping business, but we often underestimate the importance of local government’s ability to support, or indeed hinder, business. Does the Secretary of State believe that returning business rates to local government control will be good for business?

Vincent Cable: Yes, I think it is a good idea in principle. Indeed, I announced it in a statement to the House last year. It could incentivise councils to attract businesses to their area. That is the reasoning behind it, but we have to be careful to ensure that there is an equalisation mechanism—some areas, of course, have a strong starting advantage—and to protect businesses from a very large increase in business rates, which could have the opposite effect.

Joan Ruddock: What assessment have the Government made of the effect of the core and margin proposals for student funding on conservatoires such as Trinity Laban in my constituency, of which I am an unpaid director?

David Willetts: The Government understand the particular value and needs of conservatoires, which is why we drew particular attention to their need for proper financing in our grant letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

Karl McCartney: Using his extensive business experience, as demonstrated by his confident and oft-repeated ability to foresee the economic downturn over many years, would the Secretary of State like to impart some of his wisdom and comment on how his Department, under his expert leadership, has helped small businesses to flourish, particularly management and IT consultants?

Mark Prisk: As you can see, Mr Speaker, we are able to work closely together as a team and assume all sorts of identities.
	The key thing to bear in mind is that when we look at the number of small business start-ups this year and last, we see an increase of 51,000. According to leading independent surveys, there were 470,000. That is a good sign that we are making early progress, but there is much more to do.

Chris Williamson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the British train building industry hangs in the balance following the decision to appoint Siemens as the preferred bidder for the Thameslink contract? Unless it is reversed, it will cost the Exchequer more than £100 million in lost tax revenue. Derby does not need a task force, we need a reversal of the decision. Will he give a commitment to make representations to the Transport Secretary and the Prime Minister to call in the decision, to protect thousands of jobs and stand up for British industry?

Mark Prisk: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s passion, but I think that the taskforce is important. If we start to unpick the contract now—in the third year of its running—we will face legal reviews and problems with how the project progresses. We need to deal with the procurement system as a whole. I am sorry to say that his Front-Bench team failed to do that in 13 years.

Iain Stewart: University Centre Milton Keynes, in conjunction with local partners, is developing a knowledge gateway to stimulate enterprise and skills. May I urge my right hon. Friend to meet the dean of UCMK to explore how his Department might be able to support this initiative?

David Willetts: I would be pleased to meet the dean. Of course we absolutely support these types of initiatives, which improve the links between universities, employers and businesses. That is one reason we have invited Sir Tim Wilson to consider how we can revive the sandwich course that disappeared under the previous Labour Government.

Jonathan Edwards: What consideration has been given to creating a dedicated Minister for manufacturing within the Department to promote this vital economic area?

Mark Prisk: We have one—it is me.

Simon Hart: One of the major barriers to the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises in west Wales is banks refusing to offer facilities to—or, worse still, withdrawing facilities from—companies that are perfectly viable and with which they have had a relationship over many years. Will the Minister offer any advice to those companies and ensure us that he will work with the Treasury to iron out these issues?

Vincent Cable: My hon. Friend recognises a real problem—there remains an issue with the supply of finance. Indeed, an independent survey on Monday demonstrated that about 15% of companies are probably discouraged from applying for it. We must wait for the figures in August from the Merlin process, but, as I have made clear in the House before, the Government can take further action if those figures are not satisfactory.

Gordon Banks: In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), the Minister’s answer was more fairy story than fact. What he did not tell the House was that by 2015 the number of private housing starts will be 14% lower than in 2007, that public housing starts will fall by 39% over the next three years and that road construction spending will be halved by 2014. These are the facts—what is he going to do about them?

Mark Prisk: We are investing £10 billion in the road programme, £14 billion in the rail programme and £200 billion in infrastructure. We have put in place the first national infrastructure plan, which the Labour party failed to do. We are working with industry and construction, and I am sorry that the Labour party has nothing positive to add.

Peter Aldous: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will consider the proposal for the technology and innovation centre for offshore renewables that brings together a network of key hubs across the country, such as OrbisEnergy in Lowestoft in my constituency, so as to ensure that the whole of the UK benefits from the proposed TIC?

Vincent Cable: We will certainly consider the proposal, but, as my hon. Friend knows, there is a proper process for evaluating different bids. The third TIC will centre on renewables, substantially on wind, and existing centres, such as the one in his constituency, are eligible and may well be considered.

Stella Creasy: Yesterday the Prime Minister told us that Citizens Advice was one of the most admired organisations in the country. Given that it and Consumer Focus are boycotting the payday industry proposals on a voluntary code of practice,
	does the Secretary of State think it appropriate that his Lib Dem colleagues are in Parliament today hosting a reception to endorse it?

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady will know that the Government are working very closely with Citizens Advice on all these sorts of issues and that it is important to listen to the industry on a range of issues. I would have thought therefore that she welcomed hon. Members listening to the industry. She often does not listen to the industry and so often is not as informed as she could be.

Priti Patel: The Secretary of State will be aware that more than 80% of jobs in my constituency are in the private sector. Will he therefore congratulate the world-famous jam-makers Wilkin & Sons, based in Tiptree, on its outstanding international business, on all it is doing to create good local jobs and on all that it does to promote its brand—a great international British brand—at home and abroad?

Mark Prisk: I am delighted to support the company in Tiptree; hon. Members can perhaps see that I tend to do that too often, given my breadth. It is an excellent business that is showing the way, through its exports and productivity. It is a business that we can be proud of.

Jessica Morden: Five independent schools send more pupils to Oxbridge than 2,000 other schools combined. What is the Minister going to ask Oxford and Cambridge to do about that?

David Willetts: That is why we have required of them much more ambitious programmes on access than the previous Government required. Oxford’s proposals, released this week, show a big extension of summer schools and an extra effort to reach precisely that pool of talent to which the hon. Lady refers.

Ian Swales: The French company EDF is about to build a giant wind farm off Redcar. The main contractor will be German, and most of the materials will be imported. What more can the Government do to ensure that British business benefits more from such projects?

Mark Prisk: This comes back to ensuring that our procurement system is reformed and reviewed, and that is what we are going to do, to ensure that errors are not repeated.

Sheila Gilmore: What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the Scottish Government’s decision to charge English students tuition fees of up to £9,000?

David Willetts: I know that there is strong feeling in England about that, but it is a matter for the Scottish Government and therefore not one for which this Government are responsible.

George Freeman: I know that the Minister shares my passion for the potential of our biomedical sector to create new jobs and businesses. Will he update the House on some of the exciting
	developments at Sandwich, Charnwood and Stevenage, in regard to the opportunities for the UK in reorganising the pharmaceutical sector?

David Willetts: This morning, I will be going to the topping-out ceremony of the bio-incubator at Stevenage, which represents precisely the kind of future for our life sciences that we wish to see. It is also very good news that Pfizer has now decided that it wishes to have a continuing presence at its research centre in Sandwich.

Tom Blenkinsop: Can the Secretary of State confirm or deny that his Department is giving grants to fire authorities to set up arm’s length companies that will tender for private sector contracts?

Vincent Cable: I can neither confirm nor deny that; I will certainly investigate it.

Philip Hollobone: Given that Northamptonshire has one of the fastest-growing populations in the country and that it sits at the crossroads of England, will the business Minister look favourably at the bid that is now on his desk to establish a local enterprise partnership there?

Mark Prisk: My hon. Friend knows very well that an excellent south-east midlands proposal is already under way. I am encouraging people to work together, but we will certainly always look at representations on a fair and open basis.

Kevin Brennan: Will the Secretary of State actively seek to get responsibility for competition policy in media ownership back into his Department? The fact that he was honey-trapped in his surgery does not mean that it should not be a Minister in his Department who takes such decisions. We have now seen the error of sending these matters to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Vincent Cable: Unlike my predecessors, I do not see my job in terms of empire building; I am more concerned that we should get good policy. The Deputy Prime Minister has spoken today on the need radically to reform policy in relation to competition and cross-ownership in the media. Indeed, we might well have to revisit the legislation, because it is clearly unsatisfactory.

Marcus Jones: With reference to the Minister’s response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), Triton Showers, which employs 400 people in my constituency, is extremely concerned that the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive is now being aggressively enforced by the Environment Agency. Bearing in mind the Minister’s earlier answer, will he now make representations to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on this issue, which is causing real concern in the electric shower industry?

Edward Davey: I will certainly look at this. As I said in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury, the guidance is slightly separate from the directive, so there is a need for clarity. That is why we are trying to renegotiate these matters in the recasting of the directive.

Fiona O'Donnell: Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), may I ask the Minister whether he is surprised that the Scottish National party, which voted in this House against tuition fees, is planning to impose them now that it is in government in Scotland? What discussions has he had with the Scottish Government to ensure that English students can attend excellent Scottish universities such as Queen Margaret university in my constituency?

David Willetts: I do discuss this issue with the Scottish Government because it is important that students throughout the whole of the United Kingdom have proper opportunities to travel to universities around the United Kingdom. I also observe that, proportionally, many more Scottish students still wish to study at English universities than the other way round.

Michael Crockart: The Secretary of State will be aware of the recent announcement in Edinburgh by the climate change Minister of £20 million to be channelled into marine energy. Does he agree that the green investment bank could play a key role in this exciting sector and could do that best by being located in Edinburgh near to the hub of this developing sector?

Vincent Cable: I am well aware—I am tempted to say painfully aware—of the volume of representations coming from Edinburgh and elsewhere on this subject. They make a very good case for themselves, but will ultimately have to be judged against a variety of criteria relating to how the mission of the green investment bank will be advanced and the talent pool available.

Heidi Alexander: Will the acting skills Minister tell me whether we will definitely be able to see the equality impact assessment of the Government’s proposed changes to ESOL—English for speakers of other languages—next week? It has been promised to me twice, but we have still not seen it.

Vincent Cable: Yes, I have indeed seen the equality impact assessment; it will be released very soon.

Duncan Hames: More than two fifths of places to study medicine are awarded to prospective students living in the top fifth of areas for higher education participation. Will the Minister for Universities and Science consider the social background profile of students on longer degree courses, so that the Office for Fair Access can demand specific actions for these courses in future access agreements?

David Willetts: I know that the medical profession is committed to trying to ensure that it attracts talented people who can contribute to medicine regardless of their background. Of course, together with the Secretary of State for Health, I recently announced a very fair funding arrangement for medical students, which I hope will ensure that the profession will continue to be open to young people—whatever their background.

Grahame Morris: The Minister is aware that private and public sector have been working together to try to deliver 1,200 new jobs and training opportunities to east Durham through the film studio
	and centre for creative excellence. Has he given any further consideration to some sector-specific measures to encourage this development?

Mark Prisk: My Department and, of course, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will want to look at this together. I am aware of the proposal, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and I will look at it on that basis.

Jake Berry: On Tuesday, LVMH, which produces perhaps some of the Minister’s favourite luxury brands of Louis Vuitton and Moët Hennessy, signed the “woman on the board pledge for Europe”. Will the Minister update us on what steps he will take to encourage British business to sign this pledge, and does he agree that increasing the representation of women on British boards is a matter of necessity, not luxury?

Edward Davey: I strongly support the sentiments behind my hon. Friend’s question. He will know that the report
	of Lord Mervyn Davies encourages chairmen and chief executives to publish their aspirations and to have a strategy for their aspirations to have more women on boards. When we consult on the future of narrative reporting, we want to consult on the proposal to make the top FTSE 350 companies disclose their performance, including on women on boards.

Mr Speaker: Earlier in this question session, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills lamented the absence of his colleague, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, and referred to the increased burden on him by virtue of that absence. I thought I would share with the House the very courteous letter I have received from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who wrote earlier this week as follows:
	“Dear Mr Speaker, My apologies for not being present for either DfE or BIS questions as I am abroad on Government business. I hope that your disappointment is as great as mine at the missed opportunities for a heady mix of scrutiny and theatre beloved by we connoisseurs of such things.”

Common Fisheries Policy

Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) (Urgent Question):  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the European Commission’s proposed reforms of the European common fisheries policy, which were published on 13 July. The House will know of my special interest in fisheries.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to apprise the House of yesterday’s important announcement and the Government’s ongoing agenda in regard to reform of the common fisheries policy.
	The United Kingdom Government welcome the release of the European Commission’s proposals. The current CFP has failed. It has not given us healthy fish stocks, and it has not delivered a sustainable living for our fishing industry. Only genuine, fundamental reform of this broken policy can turn around those failures, and the proposals released by the Commission yesterday are a vital first step.
	The key elements of the proposal are the introduction of a phased ban on the discarding of commercial fish; decentralisation of decision-making, away from micro-management in Brussels; a longer-term approach focused on the introduction of multi-annual plans that deliver maximum sustainable yield by 2015; integration of fisheries management with other marine policies; market measures allocating transferable fishing concessions; improvements in the sustainability and transparency of fisheries agreements with developing countries under the CFP’s external dimension; and commitments to improve scientific knowledge and encourage the development of sustainable aquaculture.
	This marks the start of lengthy negotiations, and the United Kingdom will play a full part of helping to improve the proposals and get the detail right. We are ready to work alongside our allies at home and abroad to grasp this once-in-a-decade opportunity.

Sheryll Murray: I thank my hon. Friend for coming to the House to give us that update, and for his efforts thus far on behalf of the fishing industry and fish stocks.
	Article 25 of the proposed basic regulation states that a member state may adopt measures for the conservation of fish stocks in European Union waters within up to 12 miles, which will apply to vessels flying the flag of that member state, or, in the case of fishing activities that are not conducted by a fishing vessel, to persons established in the territory. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he will not apply any restrictions to recreational sea anglers who fish from the shore around our coastline?
	When he goes to the Council of Ministers, will my hon. Friend make representations to enable the United Kingdom to introduce high standards of management and conservation in respect of all fishing vessels that fish within the 12-mile limit in our territorial waters? There is a precedent: most of the new member states, and Greece, restrict fishing within their 12-mile limits to
	their national fleets. It would be good if the Minister could go to the Council and argue for a level playing field for British fishermen.

Richard Benyon: The short answer to my hon. Friend’s first question is yes. The Government recognise the value of recreational sea angling, and we want to encourage it. We are running a specific project to identify sea anglers and their numbers, and to support their work for both tourism and the natural environment. Sea angling from the shore has no connection with the common fisheries policy, and will remain our national responsibility. We hope to see more sea anglers fishing onshore and from vessels.
	As for my hon. Friend’s second, more technical question about the 12-mile limit, we will look for any opportunity to take more control over the management of our fisheries at a local level. The thrust of our proposals has been, and will continue to be, a decentralisation of fisheries management. We, too, want a level playing field, and my hon. Friend was entirely right to suggest that. Any examples of countries’ failing to comply will be our responsibility in the negotiations.
	Finally, let me say something about our marine conservation measures. We want to ensure that we do not limit the activities of our fishermen in our waters, and then see other fishermen, with historic rights that may precede 1972, coming into our waters and fishing in an unacceptable way. I assure my hon. Friend that I am determined to see a level playing field.

William Bain: May I offer the Opposition’s support for the reforms proposed by the European Commission yesterday? They present a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape the current top-down, broken common fisheries policy into one that can better serve the fishing industry and consumers, and protect our marine environment.
	Will the Minister join me in welcoming the potential that the reforms have to end the scandal of up to 60% of fish in some European fisheries being discarded at sea by introducing individual, nationally tradeable catch shares? Will he also support further incentives for the fishing industry to increase investment in selective fishing nets and other monitoring equipment, which could cut the levels of discards and by-catch still further? Will he take up the challenge from the WWF to call for specific measures to ensure that environmental targets are met by a new common fisheries policy, and to rebuild fisheries which the Commission said yesterday have been over-exploited by 75%? Small-scale fleets account for 77% of total EU fleet size, but only 8% in terms of tonnage. Will the Minister indicate how these proposals will secure the viability of that sector?
	Finally, does the Minister share my disappointment that although a consensus in favour of these changes is building throughout the EU, the Scottish Government have chosen this moment to isolate themselves in Europe by opposing these reforms, and although their views will be respected, they will not shift the unanimous will of this House, nor of the 700,000 people who have signed the Fish Fight petition, to seize this moment for reform in the interests of the sustainability of fish stocks and the future of the fishing industry?

Richard Benyon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s continued support for the Government’s position. I said this was a once-in-a-decade opportunity, but I rather prefer his reference to this being a once-in-a-generation opportunity. If we do not get this right this time, we all know what the state of both fish stocks in United Kingdom waters and the fishing industry could be, so a lot is riding on this. Things do not come much more important than success in these rounds.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the point about discards, as that is fundamental to these reforms. Steps such as the great work that was going on before we came to government—and which I hope he feels we have continued—and the development of concepts such as Fishing for the Markets, which looks at the 54% of discards created by the fact that there is no market for these fish, are all good in themselves, but the Fish Fight campaign came at precisely the right time and has lit a fuse under what we are seeking to achieve. The Commission’s proposals are bold and we want to support that spirit of boldness, and also to make sure that they are practical. We think the Commissioner is going in the right direction on discards.
	I want to make sure that fishermen are seen as part of the solution, and not just hit by yet more control and regulation. Where we have worked with fishermen, such as on catch quotas and Project 50%, and what we are doing on Fishing for the Markets, show that this is the way forward.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a point about the under-10 metre fleet. We have just finished a consultation on trying to improve the fishing opportunity for the under-10s. The wording in the Commission’s document offers the potential for a one-way valve. We could transfer some of the rights-based proposals to enhance the under-10 metre fleet without disadvantaging the over-10 metre fleet, which is also suffering. I am therefore mindful of the difficult balance we have to achieve.
	On the final point about Scotland, I just give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that I will work very closely with all the devolved Governments. I want to achieve a UK position on this, because that will give strength to our negotiating position. I do not recognise a huge difference between us and the Scottish Government. I know they have concerns about rights-based management, but I think we can get round that and I hope we can have a UK position going forward.

Andrew George: First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his negotiating skills and endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray)? In respect of inshore fishing and in particular the 12-mile limit, will my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that the historic rights of foreign vessels operating within that zone are properly scrutinised, particularly where they are towing away the gear of some of the inshore men, and ensure that there is equality of enforcement within those 12 miles?

Richard Benyon: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that I am absolutely determined that vessels from overseas respect whatever rules we bring in. Looking at the wording of this document, the means we are applying here is the marine strategy framework directive. The policies we are implementing through our
	conservation schemes—our marine-protected areas, our marine conservation zones under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009—are entirely in accordance with that directive, so it is impossible for other countries to try to say we are acting in a discriminatory way. I got the verbal support of the Commissioner on this in my negotiations with her, and I want to make sure we underpin this issue in the negotiations going forward.

Austin Mitchell: I hope that the Minister will accept that the Commission’s proposals are rather like the curate’s fish: good in parts, but very smelly in others. There is a particular problem, which I hope he will pursue, with the national input, which is now beginning. First, in the process of decentralisation, more power should be passed down to the regional advisory councils, which involve the industry and have done a good job. Secondly, in pushing the question of discards back to the national Governments, the commissioner is trying to perform a populist trick, because discards pose a particular problem for mixed fisheries—which we have—and quotas. There are bound to be discards, and the fish are dead, whether they are landed or dumped at sea. We have to deal with the problem, but it is better dealt with in the way that the industry is dealing with it now—by selective measures, which have cut discards by 50% over 10 years—than through the blanket ban that the Commission proposes. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind in the negotiations.

Richard Benyon: I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about decentralisation. If I have a disappointment, it is about the tone of the document. I do not think that there is quite as much as we had hoped for on regionalisation and decentralisation. What do we mean by that? It means that we want fisheries to be managed on an ecosystem basis. It means that when it comes to the Irish sea, for example, we are talking with the Irish Government and devolved Governments to try to match what we know is a complex mixed fishery; and, when it comes to his constituency, we are proceeding in a similar way on the North sea. We will push hard for that, because we absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that top-down micro-management, under which net sizes and other technical measures are decided in Brussels, has failed and would be a disaster if allowed to continue.
	The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that if most of the 700,000 people who signed the Fish Fight petition saw a headline with the words “discards” and “ban” in it, they might think, “Great! Job done,” but he and I know that it is not as simple as that. In order for the measure to be effective, particularly in mixed fisheries, we need to be nuanced and careful. That is why we have to ensure that we work closely, as he said, through the system of management that we develop and that we do not just allow a problem that at the moment happens at sea to be converted to a landfill problem, which is what could happen unless we are imaginative.

Tony Baldry: One cannot ring-fence European fisheries. Will my hon. Friend update the House on what is happening on the fisheries partnership agreements with developing countries, and how that might affect what happens in EU waters?

Richard Benyon: This has been one of the most worrying developments of the common fisheries policy in recent years. We cannot get our act together just in UK waters and in EU waters while ignoring the EU’s footprint on fisheries—if one can have a footprint on fisheries—further afield. I have been visited by fishermen from Mauritania, Cape Verde and Senegal, and have been truly shocked by what I have heard about the impact not just of EU vessels, but of vessels from other countries. Those vessels have been fishing totally unsustainably, which has had a destabilising effect on the economies of those coastal communities, along with other, social effects and the increased migration that this has caused. We have to understand that we in the EU really have to get our house in order, because it will have huge implications for developing countries if we do not.

Eilidh Whiteford: I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment to radical reform of fisheries management policy in Europe. I also welcome his commitment to working with the devolved Governments in that process. However, I hope that he will also share my concern that according to the European Commission’s own impact assessment, the proposals could result in a 20% reduction in the Scottish fishing fleet—a fleet that has already been halved in the past 10 years. What assurances can the Minister give that the most conservation-conscious and aware fleet in Europe will not be further punished for the failures of the common fisheries policy?

Richard Benyon: The hon. Lady is right to raise concerns on behalf of her constituents. I can give her an assurance that we are working through the detail of the proposals. As she knows, this is a major step, but it is also a first step in the negotiations, which will take another 18 months to secure. I will be working closely with my colleague Richard Lochhead in Scotland and with other devolved Ministers to try to ensure that we represent all the UK fleets. I cannot say at this stage whether the impact assessment would have the effect that she mentioned. However, I entirely concur with her that the Scottish fleet has taken great strides in fishing more sustainably, embracing concepts such as catch quotas. I will continue to work with her and others to ensure that this is understood not just here, but abroad as well.

Laura Sandys: I have been speaking to my Thanet fishermen this morning and they very much welcome what they see as an opening up of opportunities for the under-10 fleet. Will the Minister confirm that that will offer us the opportunity to take advantage of technical measures and effort control to see a significant reduction in discards as a devolved mechanism that will be the responsibility of the Government and not determined by the EU?

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for facilitating a useful meeting with fishermen in her constituency last week to hear their concerns about our under-10-metre consultation, which, like all things to do with fisheries, is welcomed massively at one end of the spectrum and treated with suspicion at the other. I want to ensure that we can keep as many happy as we can.
	The point about the consultation is that it is a UK—or English, in this case—Government responsibility. We can carry it out and make changes that will advantage my hon. Friend’s fishermen and, I hope, not disadvantage others. The Commission paper offers opportunities to rebalance the industry where we feel it is necessary, without disadvantaging either side, through market mechanisms that will see the transfer of fishing opportunity between willing buyer and willing seller in a direction that fishermen in her constituency will find very attractive.

Barry Gardiner: I welcome Commissioner Damanaki’s proposals and ask the Minister to confirm that he will support the proposal to establish a legal obligation to set fishing limits at sustainable levels by 2015. On the question of discards, the requirement to land all catch of specified species and the catch limits will effectively act as a ban on discarding the species most commonly associated with the problem, but will not tackle the problem for all the species. Notwithstanding the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), the Minister will know that if we are to assess stock levels and to obtain the scientific data that we need to consider on an ecosystems basis, that is the only way of achieving the legal—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Richard Benyon: I know that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to see the words “ecosystem approach” at the heart of the document and he is right to have pushed for that. We are committed to fishing to a maximum sustainable yield by 2015. Many people talk about that as though it is the great nirvana of fisheries management but many people do not understand what maximum sustainable yield actually means. People talk about it as a line or a bandwidth and many people do not understand its implications for a mixed fishery. The Government made that commitment in Johannesburg and it fits in with our move towards good environmental status in 2020. Those commitments are solid. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned discards. He is right that many species are discarded, as I said, because there is no market for them. Markets are being developed through good work being done by DEFRA as well as retailers and celebrity chefs and we will make sure that we extend that—

Mr Speaker: Order. We are grateful.

Neil Parish: I spent 10 years listening to warm words from the European Commission. May I urge the Minister to take as much unilateral action as possible, first, to ban discards from our 12-mile limits, at the very least, and to use that fish efficiently both to eat and to process for fish farms and, secondly, to look after sea anglers and the under-10-metre fleet? We can do much more as a nation; let us lead by example and take the rest of the European countries with us.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I recognise his experience and the cynicism born out of his many years on the other side of the channel. I assure him that I will do all that. I want to ensure that Britain continues to be at the forefront of calling for radical
	reform and I am concerned with outcomes, not warm words. I am sure there will be plenty of warm words, but the proof will be found in what my fellow Ministers do. Co-decision among his erstwhile colleagues in the European Parliament is now really important.

Tom Greatrex: I agree with the Minister that one of the more welcome aspects of what the Commission has said is the move towards longer-term arrangements. Does he share my concern that without a parallel move to local management such arrangements will not solve the problems inherent in the CFP?

Richard Benyon: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and that is one of the problems with the cod recovery plan. We want to see a much more localised management of the long-term management plans. I like long-term management plans because to an extent, although not totally, they take power away from politicians. The frankly ridiculous process we go through every December will become less of a horse-trading event if plans are written into a solid long-term process. That is why I am pleased to see this development in the document and that the Government’s firm views on this matter have been listened to.

Peter Aldous: I commend the Commissioner for her statement and the Minister for his hard work on this subject. There are two scandals with how fisheries are managed in Europe: discards, which are now out in the open; and slipper skippers, that is, people who hold and trade quota and have no connection with the industry. What is he doing to address that elephant in the room?

Richard Benyon: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I share his concern and with many issues relating to fisheries I always start by thinking, “I would not have started from here.” We have these so-called slipper skippers—although we do not have quite as many as are sometimes declared—because many of the trades of fishing opportunity were done privately. We have never created a clear right; we have created a deemed right of access to a national resource. That is why I hope that a rights-based management scheme, as I have outlined, will offer the opportunity for clarity. I believe the work we are doing in DEFRA and through the Marine Management Organisation to identify who owns quota will go a long way towards dealing with the urban—or aqua—myths about quota being held by football clubs and celebrities.

Kelvin Hopkins: The CFP has been an unmitigated disaster and during my 14 years in this Chamber I have called many times for its abolition and for Britain either to seek its abolition or to give notice that at some point we will withdraw from the CFP and reclaim our 200-mile historic fishing limits. Will the Minister keep that possibility open in any negotiations?

Richard Benyon: My priority, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, is to deal with an industry in crisis. I could spend all my energies trying to unpick
	treaties and this House might collectively decide to do that at some point in the future, but we are dealing with an industry with genuine problems that are affecting coastal towns socially through jobs, people’s livelihoods and processing industries as well as affecting our food security. That is why I want to put all my efforts into trying to get the right result out of these negotiations. I hope I have the support of the House in doing that.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. These are very important exchanges but they are slow—I have checked the record—and they need to get sharper as regards the speed of both questions and answers.

Andrew Murrison: The proposals are very welcome, but does the Minister agree that given the finite nature of the European maritime fisheries fund, they will work only if he is able to convince British consumers to develop a test for those species that are discarded? Notwithstanding his comments about Jamie Oliver, how does he propose to do that?

Richard Benyon: I refer my hon. Friend to the Fishing for the Markets scheme, which I mentioned earlier and is trying to do precisely that. It is trying to create new supply chain mechanisms for various species as well as to give us a more eclectic taste in the fish we eat. We basically eat five species of fish in this country and in Spain, I think, they eat 20 or 30. I urge my hon. Friend and other colleagues to start eating dab, coley, gurnard and other species that are thrown away much too readily and are absolutely delicious.

Frank Doran: I congratulate the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on securing the urgent question. It is good to hear such all-party support in the Chamber for the position being taken by the Minister. That is extremely important. However, he will be aware that the industry feels very strongly that what we are seeing is basically a framework with a few headline-grabbing statements but not a lot of substance. There is a considerable amount of work to do. Given that we did not have a proper fisheries debate last year, will he ensure that this year we have a proper, full day’s debate so that this crucial issue can be properly discussed?

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his work through the all-party group; he is very much respected in the House for his views on this issue. We had a four-hour debate on discards and working towards maximum sustainable yield not long ago. I share his disappointment that the annual fisheries debate was moved to Westminster Hall; I hope that this year it will take place in the Chamber and that we will have a full day’s debate.

David Nuttall: By any objective measure, the common fisheries policy has been a complete and utter disaster for British fishermen and British consumers, not to mention the fact that it has not been too good for fish stocks. Could the Minister please inform the House what benefits for Britain, if any, he thinks there have been from the policy?

Richard Benyon: I cannot. I share my hon. Friend’s view that the common fisheries policy has been a failure on every level. He rightly points out that there are fewer fishermen and fewer fish. However, we have to recognise that fish move between national boundaries and I hope he will agree that we should operate on an ecosystem basis, looking at the full extent of where fish move in a passport-free, Schengen-agreement type way. We can adapt our fishing policies to how fish behave.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. The common fisheries policy has galvanised all the fishing industry in Northern Ireland to oppose it. This morning, we perhaps have an opportunity to get things right for the future. The Minister mentioned regionalisation. Could he enlighten us further on how he sees that happening? Will control in Northern Ireland be with local representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly or will it be with the villages as well? He has not mentioned decommissioning. With regionalisation, will there be decommissioning? If so, will it ensure that the fishing industry is sustainable in future?

Richard Benyon: There has been no word of decommissioning per se in the document, but I recognise that it might be required in some areas by some fishing communities as a possible way forward. At this stage, I cannot promise any money from the UK Government or suggest that it could be forthcoming from the EU, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that when we talk about localised, regionalised or devolved management, I want to see much more involvement from fishermen in communities such as his. I want this to be addressed on a sea-basin basis, with consideration of where fishermen are fishing. The regional advisory councils have been a very good model for this and I believe that is the way forward.

Peter Bone: It is hard to believe that the Minister believes the twaddle he has been talking today. The common fisheries policy has been an unmitigated disaster and the British people want to come out of the European Union—would not that be the simple solution?

Richard Benyon: That is not really on the subject and is slightly above my pay grade, but I agree that the common fisheries policy has been an unmitigated disaster.

Gregg McClymont: The European Commission’s proposals will ban the discard of quota fish only, but many discards are non-quota, as the Minister will be aware. Do the Government propose a total ban on discards or not?

Richard Benyon: We want to work with the industry to achieve an end to discards, which means looking at the whole range of species that are discarded. I was on a trawler last week watching perfectly edible fish being thrown into the sea. I know what an affront that is to us, and the great British public are outraged by it. We have to make sure that we follow this up and do not simply follow the letter of the document. The good work being done by DEFRA and partners in our Fishing for the Markets project and other schemes really makes a difference. I think we can get there.

Amber Rudd: The Minister has spoken cautiously about the need to navigate through the different interests within the fisheries group. Does he nevertheless recognise that in the past 20 years the massive benefit of the tradeable quota has largely been with the producer organisations—the larger fisheries? Can he assure us that there will be emphasis during all negotiations on ensuring that the under-10-metre fisheries are restored to their former glory?

Richard Benyon: My hon. Friend, like many Members of the House, is very good at standing up for fishing interests in her constituency. I assure her and them that my commitment to getting a better deal for the under-10-metre fleet remains absolutely solid. I am grateful for the work that she and fishermen in her constituency, as well as the New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association and other organisations have been doing to make consultation become a reality. Let me reassure her that I want a better deal for our inshore fleet, which largely fishes sustainably and needs better fishing opportunities.

Tony Lloyd: May I return to the important point raised by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) earlier? The problem of overfishing is global and threatens life in the oceans as a whole. This is urgent: will the Minister give a commitment that the British Government will use the opportunity presented by this review of the common fisheries policy to internationalise this process and to make sure there is investment in the real scientific research this problem needs?

Richard Benyon: On the latter point, absolutely. Science has not been mentioned this morning, but it is very important that we develop a much closer working relationship between scientists and fishermen and that our scientific understanding of fish stocks is improved. I am very pleased to see in the document a commitment to address fisheries partnership agreements and the impact they could have on seas and ecosystems beyond EU borders. I think we should all be concerned if our taxpayers’ money is going in benign or actual subsidies to fishing practices at home or abroad that are hugely damaging not only to the marine environment but to the societies that the marine environment should be supporting.

David Rutley: Having worked at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food during the so-called tuna wars of the mid-1990s, I am keen to ask my hon. Friend what focus will be given to monitoring the practices of foreign fishing vessels under any future CFP regime.

Richard Benyon: The good news is that there is much better technology now. I have sat in the operations room of the Marine Management Organisation looking at vessel monitoring systems data on where every vessel is. One can tell precisely what those vessels are doing, and that is improving with e-log books. I went out with a Fishery Protection Squadron patrol the other day and saw the work it does, and I was really impressed by its professionalism. I can give my hon. Friend a commitment that we will work extremely hard to continue to be
	experts in what we do. We are respected throughout the world for our work on monitoring fisheries, and technology is on our side.

Thomas Docherty: The Minister will be aware of concerns that the proposals might allow an international trade in quotas to result in Scottish fishermen’s not being able to fish in Scottish waters. Will he find time to meet me and other MPs to discuss this matter during the consultation?

Richard Benyon: I would like to meet hon. Members from both sides of the House during this process and to keep up a regular dialogue. I think there are misunderstandings about the possibility of creating a market mechanism in tradeable quotas. I want to make sure that they are retained in member states, that there is no possibility that more fishing opportunity can be grabbed by fewer and fewer people and that there is a social dimension to our fisheries policy. I want to try to get UK-wide agreement on this.

Bob Stewart: From 2013, when the new regulations come in, would it be possible for some very clever people, perhaps in DEFRA, to design a system so that fish discards are distributed to charity, perhaps at home or even abroad?

Richard Benyon: The commissioner mentioned that as part of the process; there are mechanisms within the common fisheries policy and common agricultural policy to do that but they are a bit bureaucratic and are not very successful. I agree that it is an affront in a hungry world, when we know that people live in poverty in our own country, that perfectly edible, quality fish are being thrown away, dead. We want to create new supply chains that will address my hon. Friend’s concerns.

Philip Hollobone: Is it not the case that my hon. Friend the Minister would be carried shoulder-high through the fishing villages and towns of Britain and up and down every high street in the land were he to announce the UK’s withdrawal from the common fisheries policy and the repatriation of British waters to British fishermen? That would be the best way of conserving fishing stocks and reviving our once-great fishing industry.

Richard Benyon: I assure my hon. Friend that I did not enter this job in any belief that it would make me popular, but I do seek to get a good result for British fishermen. I know and understand where he is coming from. These discussions will no doubt be had in our party and others in future, but we want to deal with the here and now and with the art of the possible, and I assure him of my commitment to that.

Business of the House

Hilary Benn: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

George Young: The business for the week commencing 18 July is as follows:
	Monday 18 July—Motions relating to national policy statements, followed by a motion to approve the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England.
	Tuesday 19 July—General debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment, as nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	The House will not adjourn until the Speaker has signified Royal Assent.
	Colleagues will wish to be aware that, subject to the approval of the House, the House will meet at 11.30 am on that day.
	The business for the week commencing 5 September will include:
	Monday 5 September—Remaining stages of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill.
	Tuesday 6 September—Remaining stages of the Health and Social Care Bill (Day 1).
	Wednesday 7 September—Remaining stages of the Health and Social Care Bill (Day 2), followed by a motion to approve European documents relating to victims of crime.
	Thursday 8 September—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by the remaining stages of the London Olympic Games and Paralympics Games (Amendment) Bill.
	Friday 9 September—Private Members’ Bills.
	I should like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 8 and 15 September 2011 will be as follows:
	Thursday 8 September—A debate on future flood and water management legislation.
	Thursday 15 September—A debate on scientific advice and evidence in emergencies.
	As these are the last business questions before the summer recess, may I, as usual, thank the staff of the House for all their hard work? I hope that they have a good break before we return in September.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. It is good to see him back at the Dispatch Box in his day job, after covering for the Prime Minister, who twice this week has sent someone else to the House when he should have been here himself. Last Friday, he was quite happy to be questioned by journalists on phone hacking, but he did not give Members that privilege until yesterday. So do we not now need the Procedure Committee’s recommendations on ministerial statements to be agreed as soon as possible? Will the Government find time for that?
	The House knows that it took the Prime Minister a little while to get it on News International, but some others still do not get it. To argue that the story published about the son of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was acquired by legitimate means is to miss the point completely: it is never legitimate to publish medical information about a four-month-old just because of who his father is.
	This has, however, been a good week for Parliament, as the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday: asking questions, scrutinising, revealing the truth and working with the Government to hold News International to account. Can the Leader of the House confirm this morning that the inquiry will now be established immediately? We need clarity about the setting-up date, to protect all the potential evidence.
	Given that it has been reported in the last few minutes that Rebekah Brooks has now agreed to appear before the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport but that a summons to appear is to be served on James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch, can the Leader of the House confirm that such orders apply regardless of nationality and that a further refusal to appear might be reported to the House as a breach of privilege?
	Can the Leader of the House tell us how many written ministerial statements the Government expect to publish next Monday and Tuesday, given that we have had 16 yesterday and 30 today?
	The Health and Social Care Bill is three times longer than the 1946 Act that set up the NHS and has now been considered in Committee twice; but second time round, only 64 of the Bill’s 299 clauses were looked at again. The Criminal Justice Bill 2003, which the Prime Minister remembers well, had three days’ consideration on Report; but given that this lengthy Bill has had to go back to Committee a second time, will the Leader of the House find time for four days’ consideration on Report, instead of the inadequate two days that have been offered?
	Last week, the Leader of the House was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) about Ministers who have refused to meet Members. I am now aware of at least eight cases in which that has happened. I am surprised, Mr Speaker, because it is surely the duty of every Minister to meet parliamentary colleagues if they ask. May I thank the Leader of the House and, indeed, the Deputy Leader of the House for their willingness to help to sort this out? We will pass them the details.
	When will we have a debate on the higher education White Paper? The Minister for Universities and Skills promised that fees of £9,000 would be charged only in “exceptional circumstances”. However, we have learned this week that the truth is very different: 80 universities will charge £9,000 for some courses, and the average fee will be £8,393.
	May we have a debate on the north-south divide? The Yorkshire Post reports that, although 109,000 more people are in work in London compared with a year ago, there are 20,000 fewer in Yorkshire and 15,000 fewer in the north-east. Yesterday, we saw the fastest rise in the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants for more than two years. In light of that, why is it the Government’s policy that the Mayor of London has been given the London Development Agency’s assets
	free of charge, whereas every other council must pay for its regional development agency’s assets? Why is there one rule for London and another for the rest of the country?
	Finally, as these are the last business questions before the summer recess, may I thank the Leader of the House for his unfailing courtesy in answering Members’ questions and in responding to the occasional provocation on my part? May I wish him, the Deputy Leader of the House, you, Mr Speaker, Members on both sides of the House and, most importantly, the staff, who support us so ably and work so hard, a very pleasant summer break? Who knows, perhaps the Leader of the House will find some time to start blogging again?

George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I used to put some light-hearted items on my website, until he started to use them against me at business questions. At that point, I am afraid, the practice had to stop.
	Turning to the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised with me, I think that what he said about the Prime Minister was unworthy. The Prime Minister was at the Dispatch Box for one hour and 56 minutes yesterday. He answered 78 questions from hon. Members, in addition to the questions that he answered during Prime Minister’s questions. He has made more statements to the House than his predecessor did. The accusation that he has in any way shirked his duties in the House is an unworthy one that simply cannot be sustained. I contrast my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s performance yesterday with the cry of pain that we heard from the former Prime Minister from the Back Benches.
	I would welcome a debate on the Procedure Committee’s report on ministerial statements. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is a matter for the Backbench Business Committee to find time for such a debate.
	We want to go ahead with the inquiry as soon as possible. We have made a commitment to consult the devolved Administrations and, indeed, others on the terms of reference and we will want to consult the judge on the panel’s composition, but we want to get on with it as soon as we can. In the meantime, it is a criminal offence to destroy evidence when criminal proceedings are under way. Once a tribunal has been established, additional penalties apply if evidence is destroyed.
	We hope to make perhaps fewer written ministerial statements than the right hon. Gentleman’s Administration did just before the summer recess; but of course, we want to keep the House informed and let hon. Members know of planned commitments before the House goes into recess.
	On the Health and Social Care Bill’s consideration on Report, we have been very generous compared with the previous Administration in having two days’ consideration on Report for the remaining stages of important legislation. We have done that twice in the past month, and it was a very rare event indeed under the right hon. Gentleman’s Administration to get two days’ consideration on Report.
	Last week, I did indeed answer a question from the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar). I asked for details of incidents in which Ministers had refused to see Members. To my knowledge, I have not received that evidence; if the shadow Leader of the House has it, of course I will pursue it and encourage my hon. Friends to see Members who want meetings.
	On higher education, if one looks below the surface, and includes the fee waivers, the average cost of courses in 2012-13 comes down to £8,161. It will come down even further once we award 20,000 places to institutions charging less than £7,500, as we announced in the White Paper. That figure includes the extra support that students will receive, amounting to an average £368 of benefits in the form of bursaries.
	Turning to the powers of Select Committees to summon witnesses, a Select Committee can make a report to the House if it is believed that a contempt has been committed. It is then for you, Mr Speaker, to decide whether that should have precedence; the issue is then referred to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which can take the matter further. A range of sanctions is available to the House for contempt. One includes you, Mr Speaker, admonishing somebody who appears at the Bar of the House—a responsibility that I know you would discharge with aplomb. There is a range of other penalties, including fines and imprisonment, but that has not been used for some time.
	Finally, I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for what he said about business questions. In return, I hope that he has a very good recess. Of course, it is not the case that when the House goes into recess, Members stop working; the recess enables us to focus with even greater concentration on our responsibilities in our constituencies.

Greg Knight: The Government have encouraged the Procedure Committee to take on the remit of the now defunct Modernisation Committee in addition to its own work load, and there are three Procedure Committee reports awaiting a decision of this House, with a fourth report on the way. If the Leader of the House is not prepared to allocate Government time to determining those matters, will he give more time to the Backbench Business Committee, and allocate that time in a less erratic way, so that we can make some progress?

George Young: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work that he is doing on the Procedure Committee; as he says, it is now in effect the work of two Committees—the Procedure Committee and the now defunct Modernisation Committee. We remain committed to allocating 35 days in a normal Session, plus injury time in this Session, to the Backbench Business Committee. Those days may not be allocated evenly throughout the Session, because the volume of Government legislation, and the commitment to it, means that at this time in the Session, we are doing a lot of heavy lifting, but I hope that at the beginning of a Session, and perhaps towards the end, we will be able to make up any ground that has been lost. We are committed to the 35 days, plus extra days because this Session is longer than usual.

Natascha Engel: Following on from the point raised by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), the Leader of the House is aware that since the Whitsun pre-recess Adjournment debate two months ago, the Backbench Business Committee has been given precisely one day to allocate to debate on the Floor of the House holding
	the Government to account. We cannot debate matters such as ministerial statements and handheld devices, or all the business coming out of the Procedure Committee, unless the Government allocate us the time for those debates. I have repeatedly asked the Leader of the House to consider allocating a regular, weekly slot, in which Back Benchers can hold the Government to account on the Floor of the House. Has he considered that, and if he has, what are the arguments against it?

George Young: I welcome the work that the hon. Lady does on her Committee. We have, of course, allocated a day next week to the Backbench Business Committee for the pre-recess Adjournment debate. Of the 35 days to which we are committed, we have so far provided 32, which I think is a good record, considering that there are many months of the Session still to go. She asked about a regular, weekly slot. She was a member of Wright Committee, which looked at the matter. It recognised the idea of a standard day every week, but also that leaving the matter to negotiations would avoid the rigidities of a set-day approach. The Committee’s alternative was a set number of days per Session, provided for in Standing Orders. That is the approach that we have taken. However, I take the point that the hon. Lady makes, and at the end of the Backbench Business Committee’s first year, I think we can review how it has worked and come to some conclusions on how we allocate time in future.

Zac Goldsmith: The Leader of the House will have heard encouraging remarks from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon)—the Fisheries Minister—in the previous item of business. He will have noted the wide interest across the House in the issue of common fisheries policy reform, and particularly the interest in the plight of the under-10-metre fleet and the crucial issue of the 12-mile sovereign territory limit. Will the Leader of the House agree to put aside substantial time for a proper debate on the issue, in time for the House to influence negotiations on reform of the CFP?

George Young: That, in a sense, follows on from the two earlier questions about the responsibilities of the Backbench Business Committee. Previous debates on issues such as fisheries, defence and the EU were provided for by the Government, in Government time. The recommendation of the Wright Committee was that all those days, which would include days for debates such as the one to which my hon. Friend refers, should be put in a pot and allocated to the Backbench Business Committee. That is exactly what we have done, so responsibility for finding time for the debate to which he refers falls to the Backbench Business Committee, using, in the rest of the Session, one of its 35 days plus.

Luciana Berger: I was in the unfortunate situation, on Tuesday in my housing market renewal Westminster Hall debate, of having before me a Minister who was not able adequately to answer the debate. He was clearly out of his depth and referred to very serious issues experienced by my constituents as sob stories. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), asked the Minister to withdraw his comments, and he did not.
	Realising that he had made a mistake, the Minister got his civil servants to doctor the record, which, two days later, has still not been corrected—all while the Minister for Housing and Local Government, who should have been answering the debate, was tweeting about a round-table discussion in his Department just five minutes down the road. To ensure that those mistakes do not happen again, will the Leader of the House ensure that the relevant Minister answers the very real concerns of our constituents that we articulate and debate?

George Young: I understand that the debate was replied to by a Minister from that Department who has responsibilities for housing, and I am sure that he discharged his responsibilities adequately. The hon. Lady mentioned doctoring the record; it is not, so far as I am aware, possible to doctor the record. The Hansard Reporters report faithfully that which is said.

Henry Smith: Can consideration be given to a debate on the future of animal experimentation, particularly in light of the latest statistics, which show that in 2010, the number of experiments increased by 3%?

George Young: There will be an opportunity to ask Ministers in the Home Office questions about the number of experiments. I simply add that the experiments are often necessary. If medicines that have life-saving properties are to be brought on to the market, they need to be adequately tested to ensure that they are safe. We must get the right balance and use animals only where there is no alternative.

Jim Sheridan: Has the Leader of the House had the opportunity to see the latest National Audit Office report on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, and in particular has he read that 91% of all Members asked now believe that they are subsidising their job? Could he raise that with IPSA and explore the reasons why that is?

George Young: I have read the report, and the hon. Gentleman will know that IPSA gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee earlier this week. The House has resolved to set up a committee to look at the legislation under which IPSA was established, and I am sure that that committee will be happy to take evidence from the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that IPSA will also take on board his comments. I think it quite wrong that Members should have to dig into their own pockets to carry out their responsibilities to their constituents and the House.

Greg Mulholland: The save the pub group was delighted when the coalition Government agreed to stick to the plan put in place for pub company reform by the previous Government, based on the excellent Select Committee recommendations. The deadline is now up, and it is clear that pub companies have not done what was asked of them, so may we have a debate on that important matter, and a statutory code with a genuine free-of-tie option?

George Young: I commend my hon. Friend on his activity on the issue; in the previous Parliament, he initiated a number of debates on it. I am sure that all
	Members of the House have, in their constituency, pub landlords who have faced difficulties negotiating with their pubcos. I will draw to the attention of relevant Ministers in both the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills the fact that the period has now expired, and ask them to consider whether legislation is now necessary to rebalance the terms of trade between tenants and landlords.

Nicholas Dakin: I was fortunate enough to accompany Sergeant James Main and the Respect team to see at first hand the work they are doing in Scunthorpe to reduce antisocial behaviour by young people. May we have a debate in the House on the very good work the police have done in recent years to reduce youth crime?

George Young: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman applied for a debate on the pre-recess Adjournment, which would have provided an opportunity for such a debate. Otherwise, there will be an opportunity at Home Office questions in September to highlight the excellent work being done to reduce antisocial behaviour in his constituency.

James Morris: May we have a debate on transparency in Government? If we are serious about reforming public services, my constituents require data at a deep level, for example on GPs’ clinical performance, if they are truly to be able to make choices about local public services.

George Young: My hon. Friend will know that the Prime Minister wrote to all Ministers earlier this month committing us to publish key data on the NHS, schools, criminal courts and transport. This represents the most ambitious open data agenda of any Government anywhere in the world and will help to drive up standards in exactly the way my hon. Friend describes.

Mike Gapes: The Leader of the House knows that regular statements are made about the situation in Libya, but it is some time since we have had a substantive debate with an opportunity to put the motion to a vote. Given the duration of the conflict and the issues that are of concern, will he discuss with Government colleagues the possibility of having another debate on the situation in Libya and the long-term prospects?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have made regular statements on Libya, and indeed on Afghanistan and Iraq, and on one or two occasions we have, exceptionally, provided time for a
	debate. There will be an opportunity next Tuesday in Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions to press Ministers about the latest situation in Libya, and no doubt the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who chairs the Backbench Business Committee, will have heard the suggestion for a debate.

Robert Halfon: May we have a debate on the Laffer curve and petrol taxes, because figures from the AA show that the Treasury received £637 million less in revenue from petrol taxes than in the equivalent period three years ago? Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Treasury to ensure that we do not raise petrol taxes next January?

George Young: As someone with an economics degree, I am always happy to debate the Laffer curve. The fair fuel stabilizer means that fuel duty will rise by inflation only when oil prices are high. As he knows, the measures we have already taken mean that pump prices are about 6p a litre lower than they would have been had we simply carried forward the previous Government’s plans. We are also encouraging retailers wherever possible to pass on savings to consumers as quickly as possible.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Leader of the House update the House on whether there has been any change in the policy on meetings of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee and will he undertake to discuss with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland an early meeting of the Committee after the summer recess?

George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and happy to have those discussions with the Secretary of State about the Northern Ireland Grand Committee and report back to him.

Anne Main: Network Rail has given an abysmal performance, missing eight out of 10 of its own targets. Surely it is time we had a debate on that, given the impact it has on First Capital Connect, other train lines and commuters in my constituency.

George Young: I hope that my hon. Friend will apply for an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, or indeed on the Floor of the House. Network Rail needs to be made much more accountable than it is at the moment, and its corporate governance structure is obscure to say the least. If we get that right, we will be better able to hold it to account on the specific issues she mentions.

Nick Raynsford: In a Westminster Hall debate on 28 June, the Minister for Housing and Local Government, speaking about his new fixed-term social housing tenancies, said:
	“I am being clear, in all our language and in the tenancy standards that we will put in place, that two years is to be considered as an exceptional circumstance, and that at least five years would be the norm.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 212WH.]
	Because some of us are a little cynical about Government pledges on “exceptional circumstances” following our experiences with higher education fees, I pressed the
	Minister on this point and was assured that there would be provision in the regulations to be issued by the Government. The Leader of the House will not be at all surprised at my horror when I saw the draft regulations appear less than two weeks later with no such provision and, even more so, when I saw a copy of a letter sent by the Minister to the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who had secured the debate, stating that he had no intention of giving effect to this pledge. Will the Leader of the House confirm that it is completely out of order for a Minister to give a pledge in a parliamentary debate and then break it within a matter of weeks without coming to the House to explain himself, and will he ensure that the Minister answers for this issue in the House before it rises for the summer recess?

George Young: I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point seriously. He and I have a mutual interest in housing matters and I know how important security of tenure is to tenants. He will understand that I would like to make some inquiries about the exchange that has taken place, as I do not keep myself as up to date on housing matters as I used to, but I will convey his concerns to my right hon. Friend the Minister and see whether we can get a reply to him addressing those concerns before the House rises.

Karen Bradley: Sixteen-year old Hayley Bates from Biddulph was killed in a road traffic accident last year. Her parents have recently discovered that a Facebook page has been created called “Hayley Smash Nissan”, displaying shocking and disgusting images relating to Hayley and the accident. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on this important issue so that we can determine what we can do to protect other families from this shocking crime?

George Young: This is a horrifying case and our sympathies go out to the family and friends. I know that it can cause great distress if these incidents are mishandled. I will raise the points my hon. Friend has just made with the relevant Ministers and ask them to write to her.

Gerald Kaufman: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 2070, which stands in my name and those of several other hon. Members?
	[That this House notes that previous Prime Ministers, including Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher and John Major, were meticulous in replying personally to letters from hon. and right hon. Members; and further notes the present Prime Minister does not.]
	May we have a debate so that the Prime Minister can come to House and explain whether he feels that he is more important than his predecessors, or is just too lazy?

George Young: I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concern. I think I am right in saying that there have been occasions when, having written to a Prime Minister, I have received a reply from someone else, which I do not think is wholly unusual. However, in view of the length of time that the right hon. Gentleman has been in the House and the fact that he is a Privy Counsellor, I will raise the matter with the Prime Minister and see whether any changes are necessary in his correspondence office.

David Ruffley: Select Committees will have a vital role in getting to the truth behind the allegations of phone hacking and other corrupt practices, but in modern times this place has not used criminal sanctions against witnesses who lie to Select Committees. In the light of the inquiries announced this week and the public interest, would it be possible to have an urgent debate when the House returns in September on why this is?

George Young: If a Select Committee feels that there has been a contempt, the procedure is that it makes a report to the House and then the Speaker decides whether to give it priority, and if he does it is put on the Order Paper and referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee. If that Committee finds that there has been a contempt, it has at its disposal a wide range of penalties, including fines.

Chris Bryant: Wrong!

George Young: It is entirely a matter for the Standards and Privileges Committee, and ultimately the House, what sanctions should then be applied to anyone who has committed a contempt.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chris Bryant.

Chris Bryant: Thank you, Mr Speaker; you are very cheeky.
	As I understand it, the Deputy Serjeant at Arms has already served the summons on the lawyers of the two Murdochs, and as I understand it, there is no bar on foreign nationals being summoned. Let me make a suggestion to the Leader of the House. There is a degree of urgency about this. Parliament is going into recess next Tuesday, and the Select Committee is only going to meet on Tuesday. If the Murdochs still refuse to come next Tuesday, an alternative route would be for him to table an emergency motion on Monday to require the Serjeant at Arms to bring the Murdochs either to the Bar of the House or to the Committee. I think that he would have the support of the whole House in doing so.

George Young: I think I would like to take some advice before I go down that particular route. The position is that if a witness fails to attend when summoned, the Committee reports the matter to the House and it is then for the House to decide what further action to take. As I said, there has not been a case of that kind for some considerable time. The House can order a witness to attend a Committee; apparently this has not happened since 1920. I would like to take some advice on the rather dramatic course of action that the hon. Gentleman has recommended to me, whatever the consequences might be with regard to News International.

William Cash: With regard to the terms of reference for the Leveson inquiry, will my right hon. Friend make a note of early-day motion 2088, which is signed by 14 Select Committee Chairmen from all three main parties, the chairmen of the 1922 committee and the parliamentary Labour party, and representatives of the Northern Ireland party and Scottish national party which lead the devolved Assemblies, and has been
	passed on to No. 10? It proposes that the terms of reference of the Leveson inquiry should
	“be extended to the whole media, including sound, visual and social media, and include blagging and other unethical or illegal practices”
	and not be confined to phone hacking.

George Young: My hon. Friend made this point in yesterday’s exchanges. Of course, the broadcasting media already have their own statutory regulation that does not apply to the press. I know that the Prime Minister will take on board the suggestions that have been made about changing the terms of reference, and we will consider that before final decisions are made.

John McDonnell: On Tuesday, I raised under a point of order a concern that the Ministry of Justice has written to all chief probation officers announcing the commencement of the privatisation of probation services. That was done without any statement to the House whatsoever. On Wednesday, there was a written statement to the House that dealt with probation services but also announced the closure of two prisons and the privatisation of a range of other prisons. May I suggest to the Leader of the House that that warranted an oral statement to the House, and ask that a Minister attend for that purpose next week? It is important that we discuss this issue, because it is the most significant change in the criminal justice service over the past decade. If we cannot have a statement to the House, may we have a debate in Government time in early September?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman referred to the written ministerial statement. We are committed to delivering reform in our public services, and we want to improve efficiency and effectiveness in outcomes for victims, offenders and the wider community. On the question of whether the matter is dealt with in a written statement or an oral statement, I understand his point, but the Government must also have regard for the business of the House. Wednesday—yesterday—was an Opposition day with a lot of important business, and I am not sure what the reaction would have been if we had had yet another statement, compressing the business even further. We will of course always look at the balance between written and oral statements, but in this particular case I think we were right to do what we did.

Priti Patel: Will the Leader of the House follow me in condemning the appalling bombings that took place in Mumbai yesterday, which resulted in 17 deaths? In particular, does he agree that at this very difficult time for India, this House and Britain should stand firm in its support of India?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The whole House will want to send its sympathy to the friends and relatives of those who lost their lives in these terrorist atrocities. The Foreign Office consular team is already in Mumbai providing consular support to any British nationals who may have been caught up in these events. We are working very closely with the Indian authorities, and we are committed to working with the Indian Government and our allies to combat the threat from terrorism in all its forms.

Clive Efford: We have only two sitting days left, and it is important that this House is reported to on the progress of the Leveson inquiry in terms of securing evidence. In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) on Monday, News International said that if he would give it the details of his complaint, it would investigate it. For us, that is not good enough. It is the police who should carry out that investigation, or the inquiry. All the information should be made available and secured now. We need a statement before the recess in order to understand what progress is being made on securing that evidence.

George Young: The Prime Minister dealt with this in his statement yesterday. It is a criminal offence to destroy documents when a criminal investigation is under way.

Brandon Lewis: When does the Leader of the House envisage our being able to debate the opening up off public services outlined in the White Paper this week? No doubt parish councils and communities across the country, as well as in Great Yarmouth, are excited about the opportunities that this may give them to be more in control of their destiny.

George Young: I am delighted that there is an appetite in Great Yarmouth to take forward the agenda that the Minister of State, Cabinet Office outlined on Monday with the White Paper. We want to give everyone the choice of helping to improve and control the services they receive and to end the big Government, top-down way of running public services. I hope that it will be possible to have a debate at some point in future to explain how we plan to take this agenda forward.

Stephen Twigg: May we have a debate on patients’ rights in the national health service? My constituents, Frances and Magdalen McAleavy, have been removed from the doctors’ list at their GP surgery. They have not moved home. Frances McAleavy is 75 years old and has been with this GP practice since she was five months old in 1936. Will the Government look for more protection for patients in such situations?

George Young: I am sorry to hear of the problems that confront the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. There will be an opportunity to touch on some of these issues when we debate the remaining stages of the Health and Social Care Bill, but in the meantime I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Guto Bebb: The recently published accounts of S4C, the Welsh fourth channel, showed that the interim chief executive was paid a pro rata salary of £212,000. Is it possible to have a debate in the House about how a public body such as S4C continues to prioritise high salaries at the expense of front-line services such as programming?

George Young: I understand the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed. I should like to share it with the Welsh Assembly, if that is the appropriate department, or with one of my ministerial colleagues, and I will let him have a reply as soon as possible.

Barry Sheerman: May I reinforce the fact that this is a unique opportunity for the House to make very clear the responsibilities and powers of a Select Committee in calling people to give evidence? In the 10 years in which I was Chair of the Education Committee, the situation was never really clear, and it seems to be totally unfair. People such as the rich, the famous and celebrities used to evade us—we never managed to get Jamie Oliver to give evidence. We sometimes used to brag that we had this power—at one stage, on the basis of that threat, I forced the National Union of Teachers to come and give evidence—but it was never clear and precise what it was and who we could call.

George Young: The hon. Gentleman will know that under the previous Administration there was a Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. When it reported in 1999, it recommended that failure to appear before a Select Committee should be a criminal offence. The Administration whom he supported never took that Committee’s recommendations forward. We are committed to introducing a draft privilege Bill that will be based on the recommendations of the 1999 Joint Committee report. I therefore hope that we can begin to find a solution to the uncertainty to which he refers.
	In reference to an earlier question, I am advised that it is doubtful whether the House can any longer impose a fine; this was last done in 1666. However, that could be addressed in the draft Bill.

Ian Swales: In areas as diverse as energy-intensive industries and children with myalgic encephalomyelitis, the issues cross two or more Departments, whereas debates are traditionally answered by one Department. Will the Leader of the House investigate how cross-departmental issues can be better covered by this House in future?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman may know that in the last Parliament, we had cross-cutting questions in Westminster Hall. The issues that he raises might therefore be dealt with by the House. I think I am right to say that that experiment was not an outstanding success and that that is why it lapsed. It might be worth looking at again, and perhaps the Procedure Committee or the Backbench Business Committee could do that.

Pat Glass: The recent announcements of huge increases in gas and electricity prices have left many of my constituents anxious about how they will get through the next winter. They also feel angry and ripped off because Ofgem does not seem to be able to manage the small number of energy companies, which are making excessive profits. Can we have an urgent debate on the energy industry and price rises, and can it be held in the autumn before this issue becomes a winter crisis?

George Young: The hon. Lady may know that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change made his statement on electricity market reform on Tuesday, the issues that she has just touched on, such as how we tackle fuel poverty, were raised. He outlined the measures that are available through the Department for Work and Pensions to help those on low incomes to meet their fuel bills. She will also know that the green deal is going through the
	House at the moment, which will enable people at no cost to themselves to have measures introduced to their home to reduce their electricity bills. We are working on a range of other initiatives. I would welcome such a debate, but it would again fall to the Backbench Business Committee to find time for it.

Andrew Turner: Will the Leader of the House agree to have a debate on jobs? In one year, three out of every four jobs went to foreign workers. That seems to substantiate the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Does that not demonstrate why we must be stronger on employment for Britons?

George Young: It is very important that as the economy recovers and the 900,000 jobs are created, as forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility, more people who are already here have the skills to apply for and secure those jobs. Part of the agenda of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is to achieve the objective, through the Work programme, of enabling more people who are already here, perhaps the long-term unemployed, to have access to the new jobs, rather than having to import people to do them.

Dan Jarvis: Given that the Government launched what was described as a six-month review of our reserve forces on 19 October last year, does the Leader of the House agree that this House should have the opportunity to digest and discuss the findings of that important review before the recess?

George Young: I will convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence the strong view of the hon. Gentleman that we should have a report on the Territorial Army and reserves review. My right hon. Friend hopes to keep the House up to date on a number of issues before we rise, such as the basing review. I will see whether this matter might be included in such a statement.

Paul Uppal: There has been a correlation between the rise in the gold price over the past few years and the number of gold thefts in my constituency. The police seem to have a particular problem in tracing stolen jewellery. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the individual registration of gold dealers, which would require people who sell gold to provide personal identification? That would help the police to detect and prevent these crimes.

George Young: I am sorry to hear of the increase in burglaries in Wolverhampton now that the price of gold has gone up. I would like to touch base with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to see whether such a registration scheme might be cost-effective in reducing the incidents of such burglaries or tracing those responsible for carrying them out.

Stephen McCabe: I was astonished to read in one of today’s papers that the independent Office for Budget Responsibility is predicting that income tax might have to rise by 12p in the pound. If things have got that bad after only 12 months of coalition Government, should the Chancellor not make a statement before the summer recess?

George Young: I think that the OBR was looking ahead many decades and outlining the impact of increased longevity on the national health service and pensions. It said that if nothing else was done, that might be a consequence. For the hon. Gentleman to attribute that long-range forecast to anything we have done in the past 14 months is heroic. To minimise the impact on the public finances of the sort of demographic changes that I have outlined, we have increased the state retirement age and moved from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. We are therefore taking steps that hopefully will reduce the necessity for an increase in income tax.

Gavin Williamson: Can we have a debate on the NHS, and specifically on the measures the Government are taking to reduce the number of NHS managers?

George Young: Yes; we can have two debates on the NHS when we come back in September. Since the general election, there are 2,500 more doctors, 200 more nurses and 2,500 fewer managers. The situation may have changed even more by the time we return.

Ian Mearns: I have been working with and on behalf of my constituent, Miriam Khan, whose mother was tragically murdered. The chief suspect, Miriam’s father, escaped justice by fleeing to Pakistan, where he lives to this day. The Pakistani authorities are aware of this case, and sadly there are many similar cases around the country. Can the Leader of the House secure a debate or at least a ministerial statement about the hope for an extradition agreement between this country and Pakistan?

George Young: There will be an opportunity on Tuesday to cross-question Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers about our relationship with Pakistan and extradition. In the meantime, I will raise the case with Ministers. I quite understand the distress of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, Miriam Khan, and her anxiety to see that whoever committed this murder is brought to justice.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Given the roll-out of the academies programme, does the Leader of the House agree that it would be timely to have a debate on the Floor of the House on academies and their progress?

George Young: I would very much welcome such a debate to draw attention to the huge increase in the number of academies under this Government, from 203 in May 2010 to 801 in July this year, and the many more that are in the pipeline. Perhaps my hon. Friend would go to the Backbench Business Committee and put in a bid for such a debate.

Paul Flynn: Certain elements in our constitution are well represented in the Palace of Westminster with statues, portraits and stained-glass windows, but there is almost a total absence of memorials to progressive groups, such as the Chartists and the Tolpuddle martyrs, that did so much to shape all that is best in our modern democracy. Can we debate early-day motion 2067, which suggests that we represent, for a start, the sacrifice of the Newport Chartists of 1839, 20 of whom died in what they called “a noble cause”?
	[That this House salutes the work of the Head of State; notes that the role of royalty is commemorated extensively throughout the Palace of Westminster; regrets that there are few, if any, portrayals of heroic work for democracy over recent centuries; believes that the work and sacrifices of Chartists, and many other progressive movements, should be honoured and celebrated by depictions of events in their proud histories.]

George Young: It is right that we have statues in the Palace of Westminster that remind us of our traditions and the roots of our democracy. I think that whether and where new statues are erected are matters for the House of Commons Commission. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to raise the issue on the Commission’s agenda, I would be happy so to do.

Gavin Barwell: Can we have a debate on school discipline? Teachers, parents and pupils in my constituency tell me that the education reform they most want to see is the introduction of measures to ensure that the vast majority of young people who want to learn are not disrupted by the small minority who do not.

George Young: We have published new guidance for teachers, which is greatly reduced in volume from 600 pages to 52. It restores adult authority to the classroom and makes it clear that teachers have a legal power to use reasonable force to remove a pupil who is disrupting a lesson or to prevent a child from leaving a classroom. I hope that that sets a new tone in the classroom and enables teachers to teach and children to learn.

Barry Gardiner: Given that a rating agency has suspended its classification of US sovereign debt pending a review and given the problems in the Italian bond market and the rest of the eurozone, can we have a debate on the adequacy of reserving policy in UK banks before, rather than after, any economic disaster?

George Young: The UK banks have been stress tested. I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman the sort of debate that he has asked for. However, he reminds the House of the importance of having adequate fiscal policies to ensure that we do not suffer the same problems as Greece, Portugal, Ireland and other countries.

Neil Carmichael: With the growing popularity of academies in mind, may we have a debate about the school funding formula, particularly to raise the question of disparities in funding for local authorities, and to mention the need to get money where it needs to be—the schools and the pupils?

George Young: My hon. Friend is right: the funding regime for academies is no longer appropriate. It was designed at a time when there were relatively few academies, and now there are many more. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is consulting on a new funding regime for academies, which I hope will address the issues to which my hon. Friend refers.

Thomas Docherty: I hope that the Leader of the House, his deputy and most importantly his courteous and professional staff have a good rest.
	Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), given the huge national interest in the basing announcement that is due very shortly, can the Leader of the House confirm that the Secretary of State for Defence will come to the House on Monday and make that announcement rather than slipping it out either on Tuesday or in written form?

George Young: I commend the hon. Gentleman for his tenacity on this subject. My right hon. Friend certainly plans to update the House on the basing review before we rise for the summer recess.

Bob Blackman: The Government can be rightly proud that we have done more in 13 months than the Labour party did to compensate victims of the Equitable Life scandal. However, there remains one group of people—the pre-September 1992 annuitants—who are trapped and vulnerable, and their cases are not even being assessed. Will my right hon. Friend find time to lean on the Treasury and encourage it to come forward with a statement on the progress of payments so far, so that we can question it on what will be done for that small group of people?

George Young: My experience of leaning on the Treasury is that it tends to lean back, but I am very happy to raise with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the issue of those annuitants. Speaking from memory, I think the finding of the ombudsman was that the regulatory failure began after 1992, which may be why those who had policies before 1992 were excluded from compensation. None the less, I will raise the matter with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and ask him to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).

Jonathan Ashworth: Does the Leader of the House share my disappointment that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has still not published the equality impact assessment of cuts to the provision of English for speakers of other language? He will be aware that many Members are seeking to raise the issue of ESOL provision in Tuesday’s Adjournment debate. Will he ensure that the assessment is published by then and not sneaked out over the summer recess?

George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, and I believe that the matter was raised a few moments ago during questions to BIS Ministers. They will publish the document to which he refers as soon as possible.

Peter Bone: This year has been an amazing one for the scrutiny of Parliament, the best in decades. That is down partly to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), the Back Bencher of the year, who chairs the Backbench Business Committee; partly to the shadow Leader of the House, who has done such a good job in parliamentary terms; partly to you, Mr Speaker, for your leadership from the Chair; partly to the star Parliamentary Private
	Secretary to the Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who gives us a lot of suggestions, none of which I take; and partly to the Deputy Leader of the House, who has gone from poacher to gamekeeper very easily. Of course, it is mainly down to the Leader of the House, who, when I ask him a question, always gives a full, frank and honest answer, but never to the question that I asked.
	To move things forward a little, has the Leader of the House had a chance to ask the Chief Whip whether, in the first week back, the Government are going to support my private Member’s Bill, which would just slightly amend the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975?

George Young: If my hon. Friend is referring to some personal vendetta that he has with the Whips Office, and a Bill that I think would disqualify the Whips from being Members of Parliament, I have to say that I have a very good relationship with the Chief Whip and would not be minded to support any measure that removed from me the pleasure of having his company next to me on the Front Bench at every Prime Minister’s questions.

Heidi Alexander: In a week when the House has rightly been focused on the phone hacking scandal, there is of course an emerging humanitarian crisis in east Africa, with thousands upon thousands of people without access to adequate food and water. Will the Leader of the House monitor the situation over the summer recess and, if necessary, find parliamentary time to debate the UK’s response to the tragedy?

George Young: It is an important issue, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development made a statement about our aid policy not so very long ago. There were also questions to DFID Ministers yesterday. Of course we will keep the humanitarian crisis under review. I cannot promise that the House will be recalled if there is any deterioration, but we will do all we can to keep Members in the picture on the steps that the UK is taking to reduce the human suffering.

Rehman Chishti: May I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on the Floor of the House on the quality of care provided at Medway Maritime hospital? An independent report found that there were actions that could be construed as bullying of a senior surgeon, Mr Mufti, the former medical director at the NHS trust. Since then, other professionals at the hospital have contacted my office to say that they have encountered such behaviour. That followed a recent survey showing that one in five workers at Medway hospital had encountered harassment or been abused. My constituents are very concerned about the implications that that may have for patient care.

George Young: Bullying and harassment of NHS staff by patients, members of the public or other staff is wholly unacceptable, and the NHS constitution specifically refers to measures that should be taken to reduce bullying. I understand that the Medway trust is aware of the concerns to which my hon. Friend refers, and is having discussions with the trade unions to come up with a policy that reduces such incidents to a bare minimum.

Anas Sarwar: My question follows the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass). A little over a month ago, Scottish Power announced an energy price increase of 20%, I asked the Leader of the House for an urgent statement from the Energy Secretary detailing what discussions he had had with energy suppliers, and what measures would be taken to reduce the impact on hard-working families right across the country. Given that this week British Gas has announced that gas prices will increase by 18% and electricity prices by 16%—perhaps a cynical attempt to hide bad news when everyone is focusing on the hacking scandal—may we now have an urgent statement from the Energy Secretary and not, as the Leader of the House suggested, a Backbench Business Committee debate?

George Young: My right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary made a statement on electricity market reform on Tuesday, and he addressed precisely the concerns that the hon. Gentleman expresses. He outlined the measures that we were taking to provide security of supply and stability of prices in future. He was asked many questions about the rising cost of fuel, and he outlined the measures that the Government were taking to address it. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks in Hansard, where he will find an answer to some of the questions that he has raised.

Mark Pawsey: Later this year, private sewers will be transferred to water and sewerage companies, and many householders will be relieved of concerns about future maintenance bills. May we have a debate to consider the implementation of the change, so that we can acknowledge the work of those who have campaigned on the issue, including the all-party group on sewers and sewerage, previous Members for Rugby and my constituent Pam Brockway of Woodlands residents association?

George Young: My hon. Friend is quite right that later this year, responsibility for private sewers connected to the mains will transfer from householders to the water authorities. That is a welcome step forward that will remove the incidence of householders suddenly being confronted with huge bills for sewers for which they simply did not think they had any responsibility at all. I commend those who campaigned for that enlightened measure. It will have an impact of roughly £5 on the bills that people pay, but I think that is an acceptable price to pay for the security of mind that goes with the policy.

Adrian Bailey: Earlier, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), the Leader of the House outlined the position with regard to criminal sanctions for contempt of the House and the proposal of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999. I am sure that it is totally coincidental, but those were the very points that I made in a letter that I copied to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House yesterday. However, we are living in a very fast-moving world. Will the Leader of the House examine the two specific provisions made in the 1999 report, and incorporate them into emergency legislation that I am sure would command support from both sides of the House?

George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. He is asking us to do as an emergency something that the previous Administration had 11 years to do and did absolutely nothing about. The answer that I gave the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) earlier was that we are considering a draft parliamentary privilege Bill. I welcome the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) that contempt should be made a criminal offence, as suggested in the 1999 report. I can assure him that it will be considered, and he will have a chance to feed his comments into future consultation on the Bill.

Tony Baldry: I think everyone in the House is agreed that our pensions should be no different in principle from the pensions of others in the public sector. Will my right hon. Friend tell us when the House will have an opportunity to make it clear that we consider that our pensions should be reformed in line with the principles set out in the Hutton report, and when will he table a motion that will unequivocally pass responsibility for MPs’ pensions to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority?

George Young: My hon. Friend will know that a written ministerial statement today outlines the Government’s position on MPs’ pensions, which is exactly as my hon. Friend describes. We should be treated no differently from other public servants, and I will table a motion before the House rises, but for debate subsequently, that asks the House to endorse that position. It will also propose that we transfer to IPSA responsibility for a new pension scheme for MPs. That motion will reassert the importance of the independent determination of MPs’ remuneration.

Ian Murray: The Scottish National party has decided to impose huge tuition fees on English students who go to Scottish universities. Given that the SNP previously called those tuition fees both “discriminatory” and “anti-English”, and that it has said that the
	“added cost of a 4 year degree means we won’t see English students going to Scottish Universities”,
	may we have an urgent debate on the impact that those politically motivated policies, which are designed to promote a separatist agenda, will have on both English students and our wonderful Scottish universities?

George Young: I gather that that matter was raised during Business, Innovation and Skills questions. How the SNP Executive manages tuition fees is a matter for them. What the hon. Gentleman describes is a consequence of devolution.

Christopher Pincher: I am loth to ask the Leader of the House this question just before the recess, but may we have a debate on IPSA? Earlier this week I spoke to the operations team at IPSA, which tells me that it now processes and pays claims, on average, in six or seven days, but in my experience, it takes twice that long, which is in breach of its service level targets, and places a real difficulty on some Members in managing their cash flow. May we therefore discuss how we can help IPSA to improve those service levels, so that it can help us to do our job?

George Young: I am sorry to hear of my hon. Friend’s problems. I understand that the director of operations at IPSA has offered a meeting with my hon. Friend, which I hope addresses his particular concerns. As he knows, we have just set up a Committee to look at the legislation that covers IPSA. He will have an opportunity to feed in to the work of that Committee his suggestions as to how we might make future changes.

Kevin Brennan: Can the Leader of the House imagine the reaction there would have been if Tony Hayward, the then chief executive officer of BP, refused to appear before that congressional committee in the US? My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has pointed out to the Leader of the House that he has the power to introduce a motion that would require the witnesses who are refusing to come to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee to attend, and for the Serjeant at Arms to go and fetch them. Will he at least pledge today, on the Floor of the House, that he will use whatever powers are at his disposal to ensure that those witnesses turn up next week?

George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. My view is that that is a matter for the House rather than for the Government.

Neil Parish: When does the Leader of the House expect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make a statement on tuberculosis? Twenty-five thousand cattle a year are being slaughtered, and it costs £100 million of taxpayers’ money, and yet that pall of disease out there in the wildlife is not being tackled. A statement from the Secretary of State is urgent.

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. TB causes real difficulties for farmers in many parts of the country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been consulting on a range of options to tackle that disease. I cannot promise an immediate response from her, but I will convey my hon. Friend’s interest and see whether we can get a reply on the timing of any Government announcement as soon as possible.

Andrew Love: Earlier this week, I was surprised and just a little shocked to learn from the National House-Building Council that only one house was started in my constituency in the last six months for which figures are available. With the massive cut in grant funding for affordable housing, and with the shambles that appears to be developing over the Government’s so-called affordable rents policy, may we have an early debate, preferably in Government time, in September, to discuss the future of affordable housing in this country?

George Young: I understand that there was a debate on housing market renewal on Tuesday in Westminster Hall. I hope the hon. Gentleman welcomes the measures announced in the Budget to help first-time buyers, and that he recognises that house building starts fell to an all-time record under the Administration whom he supported.

David Mowat: The Leader of the House will be aware that four times now, Opposition Members have objected to the setting up of the Committee to scrutinise the draft Financial Services Bill. Does he know what they have against better scrutiny of financial services, and in particular why they do not want that Committee to start its important work?

George Young: I share my hon. Friend’s concern that we have been unable to establish that Joint Committee to look at the draft Financial Services Bill. I very much hope that when the motion comes before the House later today, it will be possible to make progress and set up that Committee. I cannot endorse what has happened on the Order Paper, where Members of one political party have sought to interfere with the nominations of another.

Diana Johnson: With the publication this morning of the national crime statistics showing that burglaries have gone up 14%, and that domestic violence, worryingly, has gone up 35%, may we have a debate on the risks that the Government are taking with the 20% cuts to the police force and on the 12,000 police officers who will lose their jobs?

George Young: I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from on this, but I must just remind her that before the last election, the then Home Secretary made it absolutely clear that he could give no guarantee at all that the number of police officers would not be reduced were the Labour party to be re-elected. A Labour Government would have been confronted by the same sorts of decisions as this Government were, but we believe that our police reforms will put more on the front line and enable the police to make further progress in preventing and detecting crime.

David Nuttall: May we have a statement and debate on the increasing amount of our national debt? That would give the House the chance to highlight the fact that, despite all the measures being taken to control public spending, because of the sheer size of the budget deficit bequeathed by the previous Government, the national debt will actually increase by around £350 billion before the next election, and not decrease by that amount, which, according to a poll out this week, seven out of 10 of the British public wrongly believe will happen.

George Young: I listened, as I am sure my hon. Friend did, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) introducing a ten-minute rule Bill on the same theme—the size of the national debt. One reason why that continues to increase is the very high interest bill on the outstanding debt, which we inherited from the previous Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) will know that we have made some difficult decisions to reduce the pressure on public finances, including bringing forward the state retirement age, changing to the consumer prices index for benefits, and accepting Lord Hutton’s recommendations to reform public service provision. I very much hope that my hon. Friend agrees that what we have begun to do will help to reduce the escalating nature of national debt.

Nick Smith: In the next few months, Southern Cross will be broken up. During that period, the 30,000 residents in 400 constituencies will be
	very concerned about the place they call home. May we have a proper debate on this topic directly on our return in September?

George Young: There will be an opportunity on our return in September to discuss health-related issues during debate on the remaining stages of the Health and Social Care Bill. The hon. Gentleman will also have heard the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), reply to an urgent question on Tuesday following Health questions. Our primary concern remains the welfare of the residents. Whatever the outcome, no one will find themselves homeless or without care, and we are working closely with the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and the Care Quality Commission to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place in the event of any need.

Julian Smith: May we have a debate on the Yorkshire Post “Fair Deal for Yorkshire” campaign, particularly regarding the need for a fair deal on tourism funding between Yorkshire and Scotland, and the huge benefits of locating the green investment bank in Leeds?

George Young: My hon. Friend might be opening a bidding war in stating that he wants the green investment bank to be located in Leeds—I am sure that other hon. Members think it could be located in their constituencies. I would have thought that the benefits of Yorkshire would speak for themselves as a holiday destination, but I am sure that VisitBritain will do what it can to promote York, along with—I hope—Hampshire.

Gregg McClymont: Like so many ex-servicemen, my constituent Mr William Young has found it difficult to enter the domestic labour market. May we have a debate on what more the Government, the armed forces and the nation can do to help ex-service personnel as they transition from the forces to civilian society?

George Young: The purpose behind one of the key components of the military covenant was precisely to help those leaving the armed forces to develop alternative careers. One particular opportunity was to encourage them to join the teaching profession, for which many of them have the necessary skills. However, I will raise with my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary the question of our progress, through the military covenant, on finding work for those retiring from our armed forces.

Alun Cairns: The number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants in the Vale of Glamorgan has fallen by 25% over the past year and according to the latest figures, unemployment fell across the whole of the UK. May we have a debate on unemployment to establish what policies are working best and why they are working in some areas better than in others?

George Young: I am delighted to hear that unemployment has fallen in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I hope that we will continue to make progress in bringing it down. As I said a few moments ago, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that there
	will be 900,000 extra jobs between now and 2015. There are encouraging signs in the labour market figures. The Work programme, which has just been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is encouraging new providers into the market to provide long-term jobs for those who are unemployed. I hope we will make some progress there. The challenge is to help people into employment and to help the recovery. The Work programme is up and running and will offer jobseekers flexible support tailored to their needs in order to help them into employment.

Jim Shannon: Food prices continue to rise at an alarming rate across the whole of the United Kingdom. In the past year, they have risen by 6.5%, whereas the overall inflation rate for June was 4.2%. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on an issue that affects everyone in the UK?

George Young: Was the hon. Gentleman referring to fuel prices?

Jim Shannon: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. If clarification is required, we are happy to have it.

Jim Shannon: I said “food” prices. I am sorry for my accent.

George Young: Food is every bit as important as fuel. I cannot promise time for an early debate on food prices, but of course the Government are taking appropriate action to try and bear down on inflation. However, for those confronted by rising food prices, support is available through the index-linked benefits from the Department for Work and Pensions.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and all 62 Back-Bench Members who took part in this session.

Coastguard Modernisation

Philip Hammond: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government’s intentions for taking forward the process of coastguard modernisation in the light of responses received to the consultation that ended on 5 May 2011.
	The key drivers behind the modernisation proposals are the need to address the limited resilience of current arrangements, distribute more effectively the work load experienced by different coastguard stations and provide enhanced opportunities for coastguard officers to develop professional skills, with pay levels reflecting enhanced responsibilities. There is also a need to contribute to the wider deficit reduction agenda.
	The consultation set out proposals to create a nationally networked coastguard system with two maritime operations centres—one in the Southampton/Portsmouth area and one in Aberdeen—together with a 24-hour centre at Dover and five daytime-only centres. In addition to delivering greater resilience and better career progression, the proposals identified ways of managing costs while still delivering high levels of service to seafarers and the public. The proposals also set out our commitment to increase by 32 the number of regular uniformed coastguards deployed to support the front-line volunteer coastguard.
	These drivers for change and our strategic objectives in this exercise remain unaltered, but throughout the consultation process, I have been clear that we are willing to listen to the views of the public, coastguard staff and other interested parties on the best way to deliver the outcomes we need to achieve. More than 1,800 responses were received, including many from serving coastguards. Of the total, 27 submissions suggested specific alternative solutions, all with a reduced number of stations but with differing concepts of operations. We are very grateful to all those who responded to the consultation and to the Transport Select Committee for also looking at the issues. This has been a model consultation, with many serious and thoughtful responses recognising the need to deliver the overall objectives but proposing alternative ways of doing so.
	A number of common themes emerged from the consultation responses: first, widespread acceptance, as illustrated by all the alternative solutions put forward, that change is necessary; secondly, concerns about the potential loss of local knowledge and local contacts with volunteer coastguards and other search and rescue partners; and, thirdly, concerns over how the detailed concept of operations for the MOCs and sub-centres would work in practice, particularly how a handover between a daytime centre and a 24/7 MOC would work in practice. A review of all the consultation responses has been produced under the leadership of a non-executive director of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, involving a number of serving coastguard officers and members of the Public and Commercial Services Union, and has been placed in the Library of the House. A formal response from the Government to the report of the Transport Select Committee will be provided separately.
	In the light of the consultation responses, the Government have now concluded that it remains right to continue with the proposals for a nationally networked
	system with the introduction of one MOC capable of managing incidents anywhere and ensuring optimum distribution of work load across the system. Establishing one MOC, rather than the two previously proposed, allows us to address concerns over local knowledge and the robustness of the future concept of operations by retaining one of each of the current paired stations, with the retained centres operating as part of the nationally networked system 24 hours a day rather than during the daytime only. Staff in each of the current pair of stations are already familiar with, and frequently experience, managing incidents in an adjacent area.
	We have also decided that the Northern Ireland coastguard station at Bangor should be retained because of the specific requirement to manage the civil contingency arrangements unique to Northern Ireland and the relationship with search and rescue partners in the Irish Republic with whom we co-ordinate closely in air sea rescues in the waters around the island of Ireland. In the light of the decision to retain one station from each pair and concerns raised about Welsh language communication, it has been decided to retain the Holyhead station, rather than the one at Liverpool. In response to concerns expressed over the resilience of infrastructure and communication links within the Scottish islands and between the islands and the Scottish mainland, we have decided to retain coastguard centres in both Stornoway and Shetland. A further review of the potential costs of vacating the existing sites in Swansea and Milford Haven has shown that there are no financial or operational reasons to favour either location, and in view of my Department’s already substantial levels of employment in Swansea, we have decided to retain the coastguard centre at Milford Haven rather than at Swansea.
	In summary, subject to consultation on the changes to the previously announced approach, we will now proceed with the creation of a modernised coastguard service providing a nationally networked system comprising: one maritime operations centre in the Southampton-Portsmouth area with a disaster recovery back-up facility at the Dover station, which will retain its responsibilities for the Channel Navigation Information Service and will also serve as a sub-centre; and a further eight sub-centres, all operated on a 24-hour basis, located at Falmouth, Milford Haven, Holyhead, Belfast, Stornoway, Shetland, Aberdeen and Humber. The stations at Clyde, Forth, Portland, Liverpool, Yarmouth, Brixham, Thames and Swansea will close progressively over the period between 2012 and 2014-15. The station at Solent will be replaced by a new maritime operations centre in the Portsmouth-Southampton area. The small London station is unaffected by these proposals.
	These revised proposals will deliver the modernisation required, and they are capable of delivering the same level of savings in the longer term as our previous proposals. They are right for the future of the coastguard service. I recognise, of course, that they will none the less represent a huge disappointment to those hon. Members whose constituencies are affected by the proposed closures.
	The additional costs generated by retaining a total of 10 centres overall, plus London, all operating on a 24-hour basis, and the higher coastguard numbers that will be needed to do so, will be offset by operating only one maritime operations centre, in the Southampton-Portsmouth area, with a back-up centre, equipped but
	not staffed, at Dover. By moving to more efficient watch patterns, we will still be able to offer higher pay across the service to reflect higher levels of responsibility, while ensuring that costs overall remain within our planned funding for the coastguard as a whole.
	The changes to the original consultation proposal that I have announced today will be the subject of a further period of consultation. This will run for 12 weeks from today, ending on 6 October 2011. Specifically, this includes the decision to retain Holyhead rather than Liverpool; the choice of Milford Haven rather than Swansea; the decision to retain stations at Shetland and Stornoway; and the decision to operate a single maritime operations centre, rather than two. These changes to our original proposals will deliver the modernised and more cost-effective service that we need for the 21st century, while also responding to the genuine concerns raised during the consultation process. I therefore commend them to the House.

Maria Eagle: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement today, and for giving me early sight of it. I also thank him for coming to the House today; this is the first time that a Minister has made a statement at the Dispatch Box on this issue at any stage of this process. I must also tell him, however, that it was wholly inappropriate for him to brief The Sunday Telegraph and the Sunday Mirror at the weekend, both of which reported a “senior Government source” as confirming the changes to the proposals. He has clearly given even more detailed information on the fate of specific stations to regional newspapers and broadcasters for use this morning. Does he not understand that it is outrageous that our brave local coastguards should be hearing about their future through anonymous briefings to the press from Department for Transport officials? This is not the way to treat those who work to make our coastline a safer place. The Secretary of State should not have sought to spin such an important announcement in advance in the way that he chose to do.
	The changes that the Secretary of State has announced today are a partial victory for the tireless campaigning of coastguards up and down the country. They are the people who best know the level of provision needed to keep our coastline safe. It has been an honour to meet and hear from so many of them over the past few months and to see at first hand their dedication. The campaign that they have fought has been based entirely on their concern for the safety of the communities that they serve, and today’s changes are a tribute to their commitment and tenacity.
	It is incredible to think that the Secretary of State believed that the majority of our coastguard stations should not provide round-the-clock cover. It is right that he has abandoned those plans and recognised the need for stations to operate 24 hours a day, and I commend him for doing so. However, today’s announcement will result in the loss of just under half of all of Britain’s coastguard stations. That will be a devastating blow to the stations that he proposes to close, to the coastguards, to their families and to the communities that they serve and in which they are held with such respect.
	These closures are driven entirely by the Government’s decision to cut the transport budget too far and too
	fast. It is incredible that the Secretary of State’s statement today focused almost entirely on issues of cost, rather than on the safety considerations that should have driven this review from the start.
	The chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency was very clear when he appeared before the Transport Select Committee on 8 February this year. He said that he had been
	“required to find 22% budget reduction in my programme between now and 31 March 2015”.
	He went on to say that the closure of coastguard stations was
	“part of an overall strategy to bring my....expenditure into line with the budget provision I have been given now for the comprehensive spending review.”
	These reforms are about cutting budgets, not about improving the safety of Britain’s coastline.
	All along, the proposals have been ill thought out, careless and rushed. It was quite clear that Ministers had already decided exactly which stations were to close when the original consultation was published. The leaked early draft of the consultation that I was sent showed clearly that the public were to be asked for their views not on alternative options but on a decision that had clearly already been made in the Department. Only just before publication did Ministers decide to put in the choices between Liverpool and Belfast and between Shetland and Stornoway, making it clear that this was done for no other reason than to give the impression of a consultation when it was nothing of the sort.
	Most incredible of all is the fact that no risk assessment was published alongside the proposals. The Select Committee found that
	“by failing to publish a risk assessment of the current plans or an impact assessment of the previous round of closures until prompted, the MCA management has badly miscalculated. It has mishandled the consultation and made it appear opaque rather than clear and open-minded.”
	It is clear that, had it not been for the campaign fought up and down the country, and the impressive expert work of the Transport Select Committee—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) for her chairmanship of that Committee—Ministers would have implemented these spending review-driven closures.
	Throughout this process, there has been a failure by the Secretary of State adequately to ensure joined-up government with the Ministry of Defence, or even within his own Department, on the cumulative impact of the planned cuts. The coastguard station closures are compounded by the separate decision by his Department to end funding for emergency towing vessels. Let us not forget that they were a recommendation of Lord Donaldson’s inquiry into the Braer disaster. The Select Committee report found:
	“The decision to cease the MCA’s provision of the Emergency Towing Vessels, which was made without consultation and against the findings of an independent risk assessment, is unwise and short-sighted. It is, quite literally, inviting disaster”.
	The Secretary of State failed to consider the cumulative impact of the cuts being proposed by the MOD, not least the loss of the Nimrods and Sea King helicopters. The chief executive of the MCA told the Select Committee:
	“It is fair to say that with the demise of the Nimrod we do not have the extent of search and rescue top cover that we had before.”
	As a result of its own cuts, the MOD will be without maritime surveillance capability after 2015, leaving a massive capacity gap that will only compound the impact of the Secretary of State’s decision to close nearly half Britain’s coastguard stations.
	May I ask the Secretary of State to tell the House exactly how many jobs will be lost as a result of the closures that he has confirmed today? What is the grade and post breakdown for the jobs that will be lost? What estimate has been made of the cost of redundancy payments? Will he agree to carry out and publish a new detailed risk assessment of the revised proposals, so that it can be considered before the period of consultation begins? It is difficult to see how a genuine consultation can take place without such an assessment being carried out first. Will he also ensure that this new risk assessment is carried out jointly with the MOD? It is essential that we have joined-up government when it comes to the safety of our coastline. Will he commit to coming back to the House in person, following this further period of consultation, rather than briefing any further changes to the media—out of respect for our coastguards, if for no other reason?
	The excellent report of the Transport Select Committee into these closures concluded:
	“The evidence we have received raises serious concerns that safety will be jeopardised if these proposals proceed”.
	The confirmation that certain stations will remain open and the decision to retain 24-hour cover will be welcomed, but the revised set of proposals that the Secretary of State has set out today will not provide the reassurance that the public need and expect. The communities served by the stations that are to close in Clyde, Forth, Portland, Yarmouth, Brixham, Thames and Swansea, and my own local station in Liverpool, will be devastated at the loss of their local coastguard. The reality is that coastguards have seen their work loads increase in recent years, as our shipping lanes have become busier and they are called out to deal with more incidents. How can the answer be fewer operating bases? Improving the interoperability between the existing centres is surely possible without a reduction in the number of coastguard stations, with the loss of local expertise that this will entail. Axing one out of each paired station will lead to a considerable loss of local knowledge; it is incomprehensible that staff based in Belfast will have the same local knowledge about Liverpool bay as the existing local coastguards.
	What the right hon. Gentleman must do now is not have a consultation on the changes announced today, but have a full new consultation on the entire set of proposals, following a fresh risk assessment and covering all of the proposals across government, including from the Ministry of Defence, that impact on the future safety of our coastline.

Philip Hammond: I do not remember the hon. Lady being quite so sanctimonious about briefing during the years that she was in government. She says that this is a victory for people who have protested up and down the country. I will tell her what it is: it is a victory for common sense and a victory for the consultation process. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon.
	Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), the Shipping Minister, has been around coastguard stations up and down the country and received delegations from every coastguard station and every major seafaring community in the country and talked to them about their specific concerns. Working with the professional team at the coastguard agency, we have woven those concerns into the revised proposal that I have presented today.
	The hon. Lady says that she cannot believe that the original proposals I presented included the loss of round-the-clock cover. That is a little strange, because the proposals I presented were those that my hon. Friend the Shipping Minister found on his desk when he inherited the post in May 2010. The Labour party had failed to present those proposals publicly for fear of dealing with the fallout.
	I recognise, of course, that the loss of a significant number of local stations is a blow to those communities that host them, but it is absolutely wrong for the hon. Lady to say that this process is driven only by the need to save costs only, although there clearly is a need to save costs in the light of the chronic fiscal situation that we inherited from Labour. The fact is that the current structure of the coastguard does not reflect the technology or the concept of operations current today. We have to reinforce the ability to share work around the system, to deal with fluctuations in work load and variations in work load between different parts of our coastline.
	I can tell the hon. Lady that risk assessments have been published and, in answer to her specific question, a further risk assessment relating to these proposals will be published. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tells me that he thinks that will be done within the next week.
	I am somewhat bemused by the hon. Lady’s foray into the area of Sea Kings and Nimrods since we are talking here specifically about the coastguard control centres. I would be happy to talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I do not believe that he wishes to make any further input into this process.
	The hon. Lady asked me specifically about the total job losses. The total number of uniformed coastguards will, as a result of these proposals, fall from 573 at present to 436 once the transformation is completed by 2014-15. That includes coastguards based in the operational centres, coastguards deployed to support the front-line volunteer coastguard and a small number at Maritime and Coastguard Agency headquarters. I cannot provide an exact breakdown of the grades of the jobs that will be lost, but I am happy to write to the hon. Lady and place a copy of my letter in the Library in the usual way. I am also quite happy to confirm that I will make a further statement, either written or oral, once the consultation process is over.
	If the hon. Lady had looked a little more closely at what we are proposing, she would understand that we have responded very effectively to the central thrust of the responses that we have received, which was about the loss of local knowledge and concerns about handing over from daytime operations to the 24-hour marine operation centre. The retention of one centre from each pair does answer the local knowledge question, and the example the hon. Lady gave, relating to her own constituency, is ill informed since Liverpool is actually paired with Holyhead, which will now be retained. She
	will find that the coastguards at Holyhead routinely deal with operations in Liverpool bay and have a working local knowledge of the conditions in that bay.
	I believe that these proposals are a robust solution to deliver a future coastguard service that will be resilient, effective and affordable into the 21st century.

Sheryll Murray: I did not hear an awful lot about safety in the Secretary of State’s statement, but I did hear an awful lot about cost. Will my right hon. Friend please tell me why he has not already published the risk assessment relating to the proposals? A Minister told the House about three weeks ago in an Adjournment debate that there would be full consultation on the new proposals, so will my right hon. Friend explain why that Minister did not say then that the consultation would relate only to the adjustments? Will he reconsider and consult the experts—the coastguards themselves who work at the front line of every co-ordination centre around the coast—about these proposals and take on board what they have to say?

Philip Hammond: I understand my hon. Friend’s specific local concerns; she has campaigned extremely hard on behalf of her local community and its concerns. Of course safety is paramount. This whole process is about making the coastguard service more resilient and more effective, and creating a proper career structure that will attract and retain the quality of people we need in a service that, frankly, has not had a good experience of industrial relations and personnel issues over the last few years. My hon. Friend says I should consult the experts; that is precisely what we have done. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has been around the country, talking to coastguards and has received countless delegations here, tapping into their expert knowledge. The proposals I have announced reflect that very useful input that they have made.

Iain McKenzie: Will the Secretary of State comment on two points along the same lines as questions already asked? First, with the announcement that the coastguard station on the Clyde in Greenock in my constituency is to close, I must ask the Minister whether he feels that safety has been compromised, especially on the west coast of Scotland, which is a particularly challenging coastline with demanding waters and a big increase in shipping in the area. Is safety on the west coast of Scotland being compromised? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the number of job losses in my constituency that will result from the closure of this station?

Philip Hammond: On the safety issue, the hon. Gentleman will know that the proposal in the original consultation was also to close the station in the Clyde—and that position still stands. This questioning of whether the closure of local stations will compromise safety betrays, I think, a failure to understand how the coastguard works and operates. What is really important is that the part of the service that receives calls and directs front-line rescue operations is effectively networked together. At the moment, we have what I consider in the 21st century to be a frankly shocking situation whereby each coastguard station is able to communicate and share work with only one other coastguard station. If there is a surge of work on the west coast, for example, due to a particular
	weather pattern, it is impossible at the moment for that work load to be shared with stations on the south coast, the east coast or elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is to deliver that resilience that these proposals have been brought forward. The professionals who have evaluated them and who advise us are quite clear that this will enhance the resilience of the system and thus the safety of seafarers and coastal communities around the UK. I am quite happy to write to the hon. Gentleman specifically on the job loss issues relating to his constituency.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. A great many Members wish to contribute. If questions and answers are shorter, most of them will hopefully be able to.

Brandon Lewis: My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I am disappointed that Great Yarmouth will not retain a station. However, I have supported the modernisation programme from the outset. The good news is that our twin station at Humber will now be open for 24 hours, so local knowledge will be retained, but I should appreciate some information about the number of job losses at Great Yarmouth. I know that that station is already slightly under-resourced, but if vacancies arise at the Humber station, will Great Yarmouth staff have an opportunity to relocate and take their knowledge there?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has dealt with the issue. We certainly hope that it will be possible to transfer staff from some of the stations that are closing to some of those that are remaining open. I can tell my hon. Friend that 25 full-time equivalent posts will be lost at Great Yarmouth; I can also save the taxpayer a stamp by telling the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) that 31 such posts will be lost at the Clyde station.

Bill Esterson: The news that Crosby coastguard is to close comes as a bitter blow to staff and to the public in my constituency and much further afield. Other Members have said the same about the closures of their own coastguard stations.
	Many will view this as a cut too far, which poses a risk to public safety. Crosby has a number of experienced and outstanding staff who have key relationships with search and rescue staff, police officers and firefighters. They want to make the most of new technology, but they want to do so by using the existing network rather than through large, remotely located operations in Southampton and Aberdeen. In retaining the 24/7 stations that he has mentioned, the Minister has presumably accepted that new technology is most effective when combined with existing local knowledge and relationships, so why has he not allowed that to obtain at Crosby and the other stations that are set to close? Is the truth that this move has been driven by the Treasury?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman talks of “using the existing network”, but, as I have just explained, there are no existing networks except between the paired stations. He talks of the local knowledge at Crosby, and asks why we have not applied the principle of retaining
	it there. We have: we are retaining the station at Holyhead, which is paired with Crosby and routinely operates in tandem with it, using the same areas of local knowledge around the north Wales coast and Liverpool bay area which both stations cover.

Menzies Campbell: My right hon. Friend predicted huge disappointment, and in that respect at least I can agree with him. The proposed closure of Forth in my constituency will be received with profound disappointment, not least because of the unsatisfactory nature of the public meeting held by the MCA in Anstruther in February. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Aberdeen, which he proposes to retain, is the most expensive station in the United Kingdom—that excludes staff costs—while Forth has the lowest running costs in the UK? Is he also aware that in 2010, 40% of lifeboat launches in Scotland took place within Forth’s area of responsibility?
	The Forth station offers value for money, and is increasingly busy because of the increase in leisure and commercial traffic in and around the River Forth. Why on earth should it be a candidate for closure?

Philip Hammond: As my right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate, given that we have decided to retain one station from each pairing in order to respond to the concerns about local knowledge, there will inevitably be a series of questions such as his from Members representing the station in each pair that has not been selected for retention. A multi-criterion approach was adopted to the decisions about which station in each pair should be retained. I should be happy to explain to my right hon. and learned Friend the detailed logic behind the decision in this case.

Louise Ellman: There is widespread concern at the prospect of the closure of coastguard stations, especially among the many people who use pleasure vessels and fishing vessels. Their concern matters as much as that of those in the commercial sector. I welcome the Government’s acceptance, in full, of the Select Committee’s recommendation of 24-hour cover in all stations, and their acceptance of the strong point made by the Committee about the significance of local knowledge. However, I must ask the Secretary of State whether he considers it credible that eight local closures will enable local knowledge and local team working to save the maximum number of lives.

Philip Hammond: First, let me restate my gratitude to the Select Committee for the time and trouble that it took over the inquiry. The hon. Lady will know, because she heard the evidence herself, that people who are closely involved with the service do indeed accept the need for change. As for local knowledge, it is precisely because the point about its importance was made so powerfully that we decided to look again at the original pairings of stations and see how the network could be organised around the retention of one station in each pair. Because of the way in which the pairs work, people working in either one of a pair of centres have full local knowledge of the entire coastline covered by both. We have addressed the concern expressed about local knowledge, while still building the resilience that the network needs for the 21st century.

Caroline Dinenage: I welcome the news that there will still be a station in the Solent area, which, after all, is one of the busiest sea lanes in the world. May I encourage the Secretary of State to consider also retaining the new command centre in the Lee-on-the-Solent area, where it is currently located? Not only does it benefit from the experience and local knowledge that, as we have learnt, is so important, and also from an ideal location between Portsmouth and Southampton, but the MCA already owns a big site at Daedalus, where there is a runway, so its retention makes good financial sense.

Philip Hammond: The Daedalus site is certainly one of the sites being considered by the agency as a possible location for the marine operations centre, which will provide 96 jobs, but no final decision has yet been made.

Angus MacNeil: While I obviously have sympathy for Clyde and Forth, I am, of course, over the moon for Stornoway and Shetland. This has been a good campaign for my constituents in Stornoway. Praise to Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, and praise to Shetland Isles council; praise also to the shipping Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who visited, listened and genuinely consulted, and has the respect of many in the islands. The decision took account of distance as well as local knowledge. Can the Secretary of State reassure us that this is now a settled situation, and that we can look forward to a period of stability at the coastguard operation centres in both Stornoway and Shetland?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I also thank him on behalf of my hon. Friend the shipping Minister. It is nice to receive an acknowledgment of some of the effort that goes into getting some of these things right.
	Of course the proposals are subject to the consultation that I have announced, but we envisage this as a settled situation which deals with the long-running question of how we can modernise the coastguard not just to make it technically resilient, but to create a career structure and, indeed, a pay structure that will solve the deep-rooted and long-running industrial relations problems that have existed in the service.

Greg Knight: I thank my right hon. Friend and his ministerial team for listening to the representations that I, and others, have made about the Humber coastguard. While this is clearly good news for my constituents who are employed in Bridlington, is not the overriding issue the need to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the whole service? As the Humber station is in effect being asked to take on more responsibility, what will be the ultimate effect on staffing levels? Will they be increased rather than decreased?

Philip Hammond: What my right hon. Friend must take into account is that there will be a marine operations centre in the Portsmouth-Southampton area, with 96 staff operating 24/7. That will provide a great deal of back-up for all the operations in the country. At Humber there will be a loss of six full-time equivalent posts. The station, like all the other stations and sub-stations
	that are remaining open 24/7, will operate with a total of 23 staff and will work in networked tandem, 24/7, with the marine operations centre on the south coast.

Martin Caton: The Secretary of State has completely failed to justify his decision to close Swansea and keep Milford Haven open. That makes absolutely no sense, certainly in maritime and coastal safety terms; it may make sense in terms of narrow party political advantage. Swansea is better strategically placed than Milford Haven and deals with twice as many incidents. Swansea also has a history of liaising with different police services across south Wales and south-west England, while Milford Haven has only ever dealt with Dyfed Powys. The MCA’s original proposals recognised that if we had to get rid of one of the pair, Swansea was the one to retain. What is now proposed is a huge mistake. The consultation should not be about something that is settled; it should be a real consultation where we can make the case for Swansea.

Philip Hammond: As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) a few moments ago, I recognise that in the case of every pair there is likely to be some internecine warfare over which of them is to be selected. The hon. Gentleman says the original recommendation was to close Milford Haven and retain Swansea. That was based on an understanding within the agency then about onerous obligations in respect of the site and buildings at Swansea. It has subsequently become clear that they do not impose as great a financial cost as was first thought, and the view within the agency now is that there are no operational or financial considerations that dictate that the choice should be either Swansea or Milford Haven. The hon. Gentleman has completely failed to recognise that my Department already employs more than 5,000 full-time equivalent staff in and around Swansea. I am not sure whether we employ any staff in Milford Haven at present, but if we do, the numbers will be very small. I believe that in these circumstances, and with no financial or operational drivers, the right decision is to distribute the employment opportunities as equitably as possible.

Sarah Newton: When the Government brought forward the original proposals, I greatly appreciated that they clearly said they were not a done deal. There has genuinely been a huge change from those original proposals, as the Government have listened to what coastguards such as mine in Falmouth have told them. However, it is clear from the contributions of my hon. Friends that there are still considerable concerns. Therefore, may I have a reassurance from the Government that over this 12-week period they will properly listen and take into account any further concerns that are raised about these proposals?

Philip Hammond: The consultation is about the parts of this proposal that differ from the previous proposal that is already being consulted on, so we will not receive further responses to the original consultation proposals, but we are open to responses to the changes in the four areas I outlined in my statement.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the hard work he has clearly done. I also want to put on record my thanks to
	my colleague, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who along with me fought a strong campaign on behalf of the people of North Down and Strangford. I pay tribute, too, to the staff who have worked hard as well, and been very supportive. I should add that the shipping Minister was very courteous and helpful. He came over to Northern Ireland, and to Bangor, to see exactly what needed to be done and to hear the views of the people and explain the options.
	The decision that has been made reinforces the position of Bangor and its status as a 24/7 station. It was a 24/7 station before this consultation process, but there was a proposal to downgrade it to a daytime station. The current proposal, however, is to maintain it as a 24/7 station, for which we are thankful to everyone involved. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has done.
	In the penultimate paragraph of the statement, the Secretary of State refers to the consultative process that will take place. He does not specifically mention Bangor, however. Can I take it that in respect of the process outlined today the position of Bangor is secure? If that is the case, we will be very happy to welcome the shipping Minister and the Secretary of State to the Bangor station in the near future.

Philip Hammond: I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that we consider that the issue of the potential closure of the station at Bangor was addressed in the previous consultation and there is no need for further consultation on that. I acknowledge the local issues he raised, but I should say that the decision to keep Bangor was made primarily on the basis of the national importance of having a station that could deal with the specific civil contingency issues in Northern Ireland and the very important relationships with the Irish Republic in search and rescue.

Guto Bebb: I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State on his announcement today, which is most welcome in relation to Holyhead. May I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) for his leadership of what was a strong cross-party campaign? Does the Secretary of State agree that the waters around north Wales will be safer as a result of this announcement because of the retention of local knowledge in Holyhead, not least the ability to recognise Welsh language place names?

Philip Hammond: I am glad that there was that outbreak of cross-party consensus. My hon. Friend is right that the concerns about Welsh language competence, and particularly recognition of Welsh place names, was one of the factors that determined the ultimate decision.

Nia Griffith: Choosing to close one of each pair is more like a party game—or “The Apprentice”—than any rationale for designing a service. I do not want either Milford Haven or Swansea to close, but given what my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Martin Caton) said about Swansea’s expertise in covering the whole of the Bristol channel and north Devon and the volume of its work compared with that of Milford Haven, am I to understand from the Secretary of State’s comments that he has made his decision not
	on who is best qualified and most experienced to do the job, but on what alternative employment is available, and is that really a rationale for providing the best service to the public?

Philip Hammond: If the hon. Lady had listened more carefully, she would have understood that there is no difference between Swansea and Milford Haven in terms of operational, technical or financial considerations. The professional advice we received was that either of those centres could provide the service required. Before the hon. Lady gets on her high horse about this, she should remember that the proposal my hon. Friend the shipping Minister inherited from the previous Administration when coming into office in May 2010 would have provided a single coastguard station in the whole of Wales. What we are proposing today gives Wales two coastguard stations and a very effective solution to protect the safety of Welsh coastal communities and seafarers.

John Leech: The shipping Minister should be applauded for the fact that the consultation process has led to the remaining stations being a 24-hour operation. That was very important, but can the Secretary of State clarify how these stations will operate alongside the proposed single maritime operations centre and can he assure me that this will not lead to any scaling down of operations at the remaining centres?

Philip Hammond: We have already set out how the local stations will operate, with 23 full-time equivalent staff. They will be permanently networked with the marine operations centre, which will have 96 staff in total, so that each centre will deal with a core base load of work, but will easily be able to transfer overload work via the marine operations centre, either to be handled at that centre or to be transmitted on to another centre elsewhere in the UK that is experiencing low work load at the time. This will be a genuinely national networked solution.

Frank Doran: I am obviously very pleased that there will still be a coastguard station at Aberdeen, but I am deeply disappointed that it has been downgraded from a marine operations centre to I do not know what status. Aberdeen is a crucial location because of the North sea oil and gas industry. My disappointment is mitigated somewhat because we have managed to keep the stations in Shetland and Stornoway, which is one positive measure. The station in Aberdeen has been gearing up for its new status, and there has been investment in new technology. What are the jobs implications of the fact that its status has been downgraded?

Philip Hammond: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, and I appreciate the measured way in which he has presented it. He will, perhaps, have to discuss the decision that has been made with my hon. Friend the shipping Minister. It is only by deciding to go for a single marine operations centre that we have been able to provide the resources to allow 24/7 operations to continue at eight other sub-centres around the country, and to deliver the result that reflects the consultation responses we received and the recommendations of the Select Committee on Transport in respect of local knowledge. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific
	question, Aberdeen currently has 31 staff. As a result of these proposals, it will lose eight full-time equivalent posts, operating like all the other sub-centres 24/7 with 23 full-time equivalent staff.

Sarah Wollaston: Twenty-five staff are employed at the Brixham maritime co-ordination rescue centre. I pay tribute to their dedication. Can the Secretary of State reassure those staff that they will be treated fairly when applying for jobs either at Falmouth or at the maritime operations centre? That is a real concern and will be essential to retaining local knowledge. I am concerned at the suggestion that those staff will not have an opportunity to contribute to the further consultation, because neither I nor anyone else in south Devon can understand how safety can be preserved with the closure of that maritime operations centre.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the measured way in which she makes her point. First, her constituents, like anybody else, will of course be able to respond to the consultation, but the consultation itself is limited to the issues that represent changes from the previous consultation. The coastguards employed at Brixham are civil servants. They will be entitled to be considered for deployment elsewhere in the civil service. Wherever possible—and where they are willing—we will look specifically to secure their knowledge and experience by redeploying them to other stations that will remain open. This process will take place over a number of years; it is not going to happen overnight. If at the end of that process there are people remaining who cannot be accommodated elsewhere in the service, they will be offered voluntary redundancy terms. We hope that it will not be necessary to make compulsory redundancies, and any that are made will be made only as a last resort.

Stephen Twigg: There will be considerable anger in Liverpool at the Secretary of State’s announcement today. Can he tell the House how many jobs will be lost in Merseyside as a result of this decision, and what account, if any, he has taken of the concerns expressed by the Merseyside fire service about the implications for safety at sea?

Philip Hammond: We have taken account of all concerns that have been expressed to us through the consultation process. The hon. Gentleman will know that under the previous proposals, the Liverpool centre would have been reduced to 10 posts; therefore, today’s announcement that it will close represents a net loss of 10 further jobs. He should also know—as he indeed does know—that my hon. Friend the shipping Minister has bent over backwards to try to accommodate the aspirations of Liverpool city council to change the status of the cruise liner terminal in Liverpool in a way that will create jobs and enhance the status of the city.

Peter Aldous: I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), and I take some assurance from the fact that we are keeping the 24-hour service on Humberside. When it comes to harnessing local knowledge, my concern relates to leisure and tourism. Norfolk has a long coast, with remote beaches and currents that change, and Suffolk and Essex have plenty of estuaries. We are about to embark
	on the holiday season. I would be grateful for an assurance that it will be possible to transfer that detailed local knowledge to Humberside.

Philip Hammond: The Humber station already covers the coastline of Norfolk and part of Suffolk, and the people working there will have the experience and knowledge that my hon. Friend talks of. I would like to take this opportunity to remind hon. Members that part of the proposal involves reinforcing professional coastguard support for the volunteer coastguard operation. An additional net total of 32 uniformed officers will be deployed in direct support of the volunteer coastguard, further reinforcing the resilience and effectiveness of the service.

Alan Whitehead: When the Minister was proposing two marine operations centres, he proposed to have 96 staff at the Solent centre. Now that he is proposing one marine operations centre, he is still proposing to have 96 staff at the Solent centre. Does he envisage the service being half as good nationally or the staff working twice as hard?

Philip Hammond: Neither. The point about reducing the proposal to a single marine operations centre is that resources that are not deployed in the other centre will remain deployed in local stations around the country, which is the thrust of most of the representations that we received—that we should seek to protect and maintain local knowledge deployed in local stations. Resilience in the event of disaster will be provided by a ghost facility at Dover, which would allow the marine operations centre in the Southampton-Portsmouth area to be transferred en masse to Dover in the event of any catastrophe befalling the Southampton-Portsmouth area.

Simon Hart: I warmly welcome the news that, subject to the consultation, Milford Haven will remain open. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the work of the Save Milford Haven Coastguard group, the Western Telegraph and the Milford and West Wales Mercury, and my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on the measured way in which they put the case for our area and the wider Welsh community? Can he assure me that during the consultation, the unique nature of Milford as an energy hub for the whole of the UK will be taken into account?

Philip Hammond: I am happy to congratulate all those who have taken part in the process for the measured way in which, on the whole, they have done so. As he has travelled round the country, my hon. Friend the shipping Minister has found that behind what can sometimes be the public rhetoric, well thought through, well argued and sensibly considered proposals and cases have been put to him.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) has asked me about the status of Milford Haven as a major port. I have said before—I will repeat it—that the professional advice that we have received is that either Milford Haven or Swansea could have delivered the requirement in south Wales from a technical, operational and financial point of view. Ultimately, we made the decision to come down on the side of Milford Haven in the interests of equity.

Albert Owen: First, I pay tribute to all the volunteers, coastguards and full-time search and rescue crews operating helicopters and lifeboats around our coastline. I welcome the retention of the Holyhead station, which is based not only on the importance of the Welsh language, as has been noted, but on the links with 22 Squadron at RAF Valley. The Secretary of State mentioned a nationally networked system, as well as consultation. When that is set up, will he ensure that there is internal consultation of individual front-line coastguards, so that they can contribute to the best and safest network, one that is fit for the 21st century?

Philip Hammond: Yes, of course, that process is already under way.

Steve Rotheram: Well, well, what a surprise! Faced with the choice, a Tory Minister decides to close a facility in Liverpool. I genuinely do not believe for a moment that the closure of the Liverpool coastguard station was agreed for any reason other than political expediency. If it was not, why was Liverpool left out of the original consultation document? The Minister cannot justify his decision. He has just mentioned that Liverpool may well get a cruise liner turnaround facility that will increase traffic along our corridors, but he has taken the easy political way out. He should reconsider his decision, based on the information that he has just presented—that Liverpool could indeed get a cruise liner turnaround facility.

Philip Hammond: Perhaps I am guilty of making a rod for my own back, Mr Deputy Speaker. I mentioned the cruise liner turnaround facility simply to demonstrate that my hon. Friend the shipping Minister is leaving no stone unturned in trying to help the maritime community around Liverpool, but the decision has been properly made, after a full assessment. The station at Holyhead will provide proper cover for the maritime areas that were previously by Crosby. To suggest that there is some kind of party political advantage—[Hon. Members: “Shameful!”] Frankly, it is not just shameful; it is also illiterate. The hon. Gentleman should look at the map.

Alan Reid: I welcome the retention of both Stornoway and Shetland on a 24-hour basis, which is a big improvement on the original proposals. However, the closure of the Clyde station leaves a huge area of sea between Bangor and Stornoway without any station, as can be seen from the illustrative map. As I said in the Westminster Hall debate, that coastline presents unique challenges. So far, we have had a genuine consultation. I think that the Clyde coastguard station should be kept. Will the Secretary of State agree to receive representations on that in the coming consultation?

Philip Hammond: No. I have made it clear that that will be outside the scope of the coming consultation. My hon. Friend said that the Clyde station covers a “huge area of sea”. I understand that it is difficult to get out of that mode of thinking, but that is not the way to think about a networked 21st-century coastguard service. Belfast has been twinned with Clyde. The station in Belfast has the working local knowledge of the huge area of sea that has previously been covered by the Clyde station, and the arrangements that we have put in place are resilient and will serve us well for the 21st century.

Iain Stewart: I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I am a member of the Select Committee on Transport, so I know that he has clearly listened to many of the concerns that were identified, particularly on daylight-only operating. When we spoke to coastguards as part of our inquiry we were very struck by their willingness to modernise the service. May I invite him to say a little more about how the new maritime operations centre will harness new technology to augment the safety that the existing stations provide?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to the Committee for the work that it did. I suspect that he may get the prize for being the Member with the constituency furthest from the coast who has contributed to this discussion today. I would be happy to talk to him offline, but I sense that Mr Deputy Speaker would not encourage me to explain in detail the technical features of the new maritime operations centre.

Jonathan Edwards: What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the new Welsh Government about the proposal to aim the axe at Swansea rather than Milford Haven? Has he received any representations from new Welsh Ministers?

Philip Hammond: No, I have received no representations about the choice between Swansea and Milford Haven.

Julian Huppert: I welcome the improvements to the original proposals that were floating around for some years. I particularly welcome not only the switch to 24-hour cover, which is essential, and the increase in the number of stations from that originally proposed, but the opportunity to improve coastguards’ pay. Morale in the coastguard service has been very poor, and under the previous Government strikes took place—a very rare thing in this service. Ultimately, the purpose of this whole system is not about providing jobs, but about public safety. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that public safety will be preserved or improved by the modernisation and changes that he proposes?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment, and I can give him that reassurance. I can assure him further that the result we have come to and announced today is based on the input of professionals, who understand the needs of the system and the safety issues at stake. As he rightly says, not only the communications resilience and the IT resilience, but, above all, the improvement in morale that will be delivered by lancing the boil of the long-running industrial relations problem that has been festering in this service for many, many years will hugely improve the way in which the service is delivered and the safety it affords to our communities.

Mark Lazarowicz: Given what the Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) about the loss of jobs under the new plans at the Aberdeen centre, it is hard to see that there will be any opportunity for workers from the Forth coastguard station to be redeployed to Aberdeen. Therefore, there is a real risk that their local knowledge will be lost.
	Does the Secretary of State really expect us to believe that two stations on the entire east coast mainland of Scotland and England, at Aberdeen and Humber, will be able to provide the same kind of local knowledge that we have at the moment?

Philip Hammond: I am sorry to be repetitious, Mr Deputy Speaker, but those stations will be working fully networked with the marine operations centre at Southampton, which itself will have a much bigger complement of staff, and much better equipment and communications technology, 24/7. It will deliver the level of resilience and safety that we require.
	On the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I understand why he made the statement that he did, but there is a degree of turnover going on within coastguard stations now, and we expect that, even in areas where the natural twin will not be recruiting additional staff, there will be opportunities for the redeployment of many, if not all, of the staff over the next three or four years.

Julie Hilling: The Secretary of State said that he had listened to the consultations. All the coastguard stations said that they should remain open, reluctantly accepted that there should be change and also said that there should be more than 10 stations, so it seems to me that they were not particularly heard. I am disappointed that he is limiting the next bit of the consultation to the few points he has listed. Will he reconsider that decision, particularly if safety issues are raised?

Philip Hammond: No, I am afraid not, as a very extensive consultation has taken place. It lasted for 20 weeks, which is much longer than the Government’s normal standard for consultation. We have responded in detail—the response is in the Library today—to that consultation process. The further consultation is simply about the changes that we have proposed since that document was published.

Fiona O'Donnell: I am extremely grateful for your generosity in calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, given that my Public Bill Committee duties meant that I could not be here earlier. The Minister may recall that I tabled a written question on the number of vacancies for watch officers at Fife Ness station, and I was alarmed to hear the number given. On Saturday, I will be at the Dunbar lifeboat day, celebrating, with the local community, the bravery, service and sacrifice of the Dunbar crew. I want to be able to reassure them that this decision was not taken before the end of the consultation and that Fife Ness was not being wound down. Did the Minister visit Fife Ness during the consultation?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Lady makes the important point that the uncertainty that this process has inevitably introduced has led, in some cases, to recruitment difficulties; there are unfilled posts within the coastguard service as we speak. Our hope is that the signals we are sending today on certainty, better pay, better conditions, better career progression and improved industrial relations will make it possible for the coastguard service to man up to the level it needs to be at to implement these changes and keep our coasts safe for the future.

Points of Order

Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order under the Parliamentary Witnesses Oaths Act 1871 for the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, if it so chooses next week, to require witnesses appearing before it to do so under oath? Can you confirm that if they did appear under oath, any false evidence would be subject to the penalties for perjury under the Perjury Act 1911?

Lindsay Hoyle: You are correct about the Act; the decision on whether to take evidence on oath is a matter for the Select Committee and therefore it would be for the Committee to do that. On perjury, you are absolutely correct.

Maria Eagle: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State for Transport to table a written ministerial statement, as he has done today, that says only that an oral statement will be made later the same day? This appears to be a clear attempt to avoid committing to an oral statement on a matter of great importance prior to seeing whether Members of the House apply for and are granted an urgent question. It was only after an urgent question was granted that he agreed to make an oral statement today, thus leaving a written ministerial statement on the Order Paper purposeless and empty of content. Is this not an abuse of the WMS procedure? Surely it cannot be right for Ministers to attempt to manipulate the procedures of the House to attempt to avoid facing it in person in this manner. Can we have your guidance please, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Lindsay Hoyle: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of that point of order. I do not believe that there has been any breach of the House rules.

Jim McGovern: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I recently tabled a question for oral answer from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. In fact, I believe that it would originally have been Question 11 on the Order Paper today. I subsequently received a letter telling me that my question was outwith the Department’s remit. It was about the computer games industry, which is a big business in my constituency—I repeat the word “business”. Many people are involved in developing the games, which is innovation, and most people involved are graduates from the university of Abertay, which would suggest a high level of skills. I am at a loss as to why the question was refused. In which circumstances can Departments refuse to answer questions from people in this House?

Lindsay Hoyle: I can completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration at losing the opportunity to ask an oral question, and that frustration builds up. Transfers are the responsibility of the Department and not me, and I know that the Table Office does its best to advise hon. Members of a possible transfer. The frustration carries on, but this is not a matter for me to decide.

Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are just about to proceed to our business on the Sovereign Grant Bill, but because of the timetabling that has been agreed there will be no Second Reading. I know that you are not responsible for that, but it is worth putting down a marker that these are very important subjects. We have waited since 1760 for this important reform but I am not sure that it is so desperately urgent that we do not need Second Reading. Perhaps in future we can so conduct our business, particularly with sensitive matters such as this, which concern the Head of State, so that we get a Second Reading of important Bills.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us see what the Minister says when he moves the motion.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Cycles (protective Headgear for Children) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Annette Brooke presented a Bill to require the wearing of protective headgear by children while riding cycles; to prescribe penalties for contraventions; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 4 November 2011, and to be printed (Bill 220).

Sovereign Grant Bill (Allocation of Time)

George Osborne: I beg to move,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Sovereign Grant Bill:
	Timetable
	1.–(1) Notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between the various stages of a Bill brought in upon a financial resolution, proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at today’s sitting in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
	(2) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 2.30 pm.
	(3) Proceedings in Committee and on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm.
	(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 6.00 pm.
	Timing  of proceedings and Questions to be put
	2. When the Bill has been read a second time—
	(a) it shall (notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order)) stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
	(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
	3.–(1) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
	(2) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
	4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1, the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—
	(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
	(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
	(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
	(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
	5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
	6. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
	7. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions.
	Miscellaneous
	8. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
	9.–(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
	10. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	11.–(1) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to re-commit the Bill.
	(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	12.–(1) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
	(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	13. The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) at today’s sitting before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	14.–(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	(2) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
	15. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
	16.–(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at 3.00 pm at today’s sitting shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill today.
	(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before the moment of interruption, for a period equal to the time elapsing between 3.00 pm and the conclusion of those proceedings.
	We are going to follow a rather unusual procedure here, I think, because we have run out of time for Second Reading. I looked to the Chair for guidance on how to handle that and I suggest that as we have some time for debate in the Committee of the Whole House this afternoon we should use the time on clause 1 stand part to have, in effect, a Second Reading debate. Since no amendments were tabled to that clause, either, that is fine. As I understand it through the usual channels, the official Opposition are happy with that. That will address the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and we can have what feels to the House like a Second Reading debate albeit on clause 1 stand part.

Edward Balls: We are clearly making a momentous decision today with the biggest change in the royal finances since 1760, so it is obviously important that we should have a full debate. We had a full debate a fortnight ago and we have that opportunity again today. Given the fact the statements have run on so long, the Chancellor is correct that we have a difficulty. The Opposition will be happy to have a full debate on clause 1 stand part and obviously the sooner we start that debate, the better.

Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just need your guidance as I have a particular general point that I wanted to make. It pertains to clause 13 but I would normally have made it on Second Reading. Will you immediately call me to order if I seek to raise it?

Lindsay Hoyle: I think we will need to listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

David Winnick: I emphasise that my remarks have nothing to do with the measure we will debate today. We can express our views on that one way or the other if we wish. My concern is that we are going to take all stages in one day—we are not, in fact, because we will not even have Second Reading. When Ministers come along, as the Chancellor has today, and argue that it is important to deal with all stages of the Bill in one day they might make their case, but that does not mean that the House should be complacent about the procedure. Last Thursday, the same procedure applied. We had all stages of the Police (Detention and Bail) Bill in one day and the Home Secretary explained its urgency, but even on that occasion, I expressed my concern over the way in which we were hurried.
	I consider this way of presenting measures to the House and telling us that everything has to be done quickly in one day to be undesirable. What will happen when the Bill goes to the other place? It will have a Second Reading, perhaps, which it has not had here, but the rest of the stages will be taken formally. I want to ask a question about motions such as this one on the allocation of time. What other measures are going to be introduced in the same way? The procedure being pursued shows disrespect to the House. Yes, Ministers always have an excuse for why things must be done in such a hurried way, but it is undesirable and it should not be repeated except on very rare occasions. I want to register my protest accordingly.

Keith Vaz: I will detain the House for only a very short time. First, I strongly agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South—

David Winnick: Walsall North. Walsall South is your sister.

Keith Vaz: Walsall North (Mr Winnick); my hon. Friend is definitely not my sister, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz)—I would have recognised that. I agree with what he said and I thank him.
	I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the shadow Chancellor are trying to be helpful but there were issues that I wanted to raise on Second Reading concerning the Act of Settlement and my Bill on the removal of primogeniture, which is currently before the House and ought to be considered alongside the very sensible changes being made by the Chancellor in clause 9 of this Bill, which gives a female heir of the Duke of Cornwall the chance to get a settlement equal to a male heir. I agree with what the Chancellor and shadow Chancellor have said, but there is no opportunity to raise these issues if we simply have a debate on clause stand part instead of on Second Reading. Like the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), I should like to know whether it is your intention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to allow a clause stand part debate to proceed as if it were Second Reading, thus enabling us to raise concerns about the modernisation of the Act of Settlement, which as the hon. Gentleman has said, we have been waiting to do for two centuries.

Lindsay Hoyle: The stand part debate on clause 1 will be quite broad.

Paul Flynn: May I raise an issue in support of the points that many people have made about the role of the monarchy outside the well-known ceremonial role—the crucial role of Head of State? This matter gets little or no attention. The Conservative historian, Robert Rhodes James, a former colleague of ours, gave a lecture in Cambridge, which was largely ignored, about a time when the role of the monarchy might have been absolutely crucial in our history. It was at the time when the skids were under Margaret Thatcher and everyone wanted her to go and tearful members of the Cabinet were coming to No. 10 Downing Street asking her to go. Robert Rhodes James, who was a very distinguished and respected Member of the House at that time, said that the Conservative party suddenly became terrified because there was a possibility that Mrs Thatcher might call a general election and she could not have been stopped from doing so by the Conservative party, the Cabinet or the House of Commons.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are talking about the allocation of time. I know that history is part of time but I am not sure it is relevant to the Bill.

Paul Flynn: This point is crucial to why we need extra time. This issue is virtually unknown, but it is important because the only person who could then have stopped Margaret Thatcher from acting in her own interests rather than in the national interests, as she might well have been elected, was the Queen. This is a question about the personality of the monarch, because the strong personality of the monarch might have been vital then. This matter is so important that we should have a greater allocation of time and a full debate.

Denis MacShane: It is a serious point that we are rushing through today a fundamental change. Reference has been made to 1760, so we are proposing in two hours, if that, to change what has been in place for more than 200 years. There has been virtually no publicity in the press. For obvious reasons, we have been dominated in the House and in the public sphere by other events since the Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor first spoke on this issue and since the Bill was read the First time two weeks ago. At that time, of course, none of us would have imagined what would be the only story dominating the press.
	This is profoundly important. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is the
	Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, has made his significant points; there are others. The one that most concerns me is that if passed—I have questions about the level of financial support—there can never be any change, because the provisions will not be debated in the same way as the civil list is debated each time the monarch changes.
	We are setting in perpetuity a system for paying the royal family that cannot be challenged thereafter. Even George III would have baulked at that—[ Interruption ]— even though some Conservative colleagues from a sedentary position seem to think that it is a good idea. Therefore, should we not put this off? Festina lente. We do not need to rush this through today. We could return to the Bill in the autumn. We could then have a proper debate and proper public discussion, and deal with it properly.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Members want to go back to 1700 and something. I am happy to go back to 1690. [ Interruption. ] Given the week that we are in, we are close enough. At home, we often say, “We won the battle, but they kept the river.” In this instance, I am happy to support the Government and go with the proposal.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am—

Chris Ruane: Going back to 1066.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am not going to go back to 1066, but I am not sure whether it was auspicious to schedule the debate for Bastille day. Debating the monarchy today of all days might not have been wise, but to limit the debate so much is not necessarily as constitutional as it ought to be, and perhaps Her Majesty’s Government might like to bring the Bill back, as the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) suggested, when we can have a little bit of time for a proper debate on Second Reading.
	Question put and agreed to.

Sovereign Grant Bill

Question put forthwith (Order, this day),That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Question agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Sovereign Grant Bill

Considered in Committee

[Mr Lindsay Hoyle in the Chair]

Lindsay Hoyle: The Committee will have seen from the provisional selection list that I have selected a number of manuscript amendments tabled by the Minister this morning. I would not as a rule select such manuscript amendments without good reason. I can see no reason why they were not tabled in the proper time, but in the unusual circumstances of the Bill, I am prepared to select them.

Clause 1
	 — 
	The Sovereign Grant

George Osborne: I beg to move, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
	I concede that we are engaged in a rather unusual procedure. To have what I hope will amount to a Second Reading debate, we will debate clause 1 stand part. Clause 1 will create a sovereign support grant and so, in effect, it lies at the heart of the Bill. I completely respect and understand what has just been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I would point out that we had something akin to a debate on Second Reading a couple of weeks ago, when we debated the principle for several hours. I freely concede that we did not have the Bill in front of us.
	I was following the procedure established over many decades, and I worked with the Clerks and, indeed, through the usual channels to try to create something akin to a debate on Second Reading a couple of weeks ago. Our intention was to debate the Bill in Committee and on Report on the Floor of the House, because it is a constitutional Bill. In effect, the House of Commons will have two days on the Floor of the House to debate the legislation, but I am the first to accept that we have adopted a rather archaic procedure. I am glad that we used a bit of modern innovation to allow this debate to take place under clause 1 stand part.

David Winnick: Obviously, I have listened to what the Chancellor said, but will he bear in mind that we did precisely the same thing last Thursday, on a subject that is not his responsibility? It is all the more irritating that on two successive Thursdays we have had this situation in the House.

George Osborne: I cannot speak on what happened last week, but I would just draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to this distinction: two weeks ago, on the Floor of the House, we had something like a Second Reading debate about the principles of the Bill. In the comprehensive spending review statement last October, I set out how we proposed to proceed on the subject; that was quite well known. There is not a great deal of surprise about the idea in the Bill of a sovereign grant, linked to the revenues of the Crown Estate and so on. As I say, I accept that the procedure is rather unusual, but the effect is that the House had something akin to a Second Reading debate a couple of weeks ago, and we
	will use the debate on clause 1 to have something akin to a Second Reading today, too. I hope to address all the issues that people raised two weeks ago in my response on clause 1. Of course, we will have time later today to go through other parts of the Bill.

Paul Flynn: A fortnight ago, the House was exceptionally thinly attended, even for a Thursday. Will the Chancellor tell the House when Back Benchers were informed that the Bill was coming before the House?

George Osborne: The problem that Parliament had was that under the procedures of the House, we had to receive a gracious message from Her Majesty the day before. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to agree with the procedure, given his broader views on the monarchy, but we had to wait for that gracious message before making it publicly known that we would have a debate in the House. That is what happened. I spoke to the official Opposition, and the Prime Minister spoke to the Leader of the Opposition a week earlier, but I accept that the debate was not as fully attended as it might have been. However, we did spend a couple of hours discussing the matter a couple of weeks ago, and there were quite a number of speeches made, so even though the debate was not as fully attended as, for example, yesterday’s proceedings in Parliament, attendance was not that dissimilar to attendance today. Of course, there has been lots of notice of today’s debate.

Paul Flynn: rose—

George Osborne: I will give way, and then I should probably make some progress on clause 1 stand part.

Paul Flynn: I do not think it is fair to blame the monarch for the way that the measures were rushed into the House. Normally, if there is a change to business, a business statement is made to the House as early as possible; I cannot remember one being made at all in this case. Most hon. Members had other pressing business on that day, and only those who were here in the morning had any idea that the measures were going ahead.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I have sympathy for the hon. Gentleman, but we have just decided on the process that we are following; we now have to stick with where we are.

George Osborne: All I would say is that I have followed the advice of the House authorities throughout. The procedure has been unusual. People have said that this is the most important change since 1760, but of course in the early 1970s, the House made some significant changes, so we are partly following procedures laid down then.
	Let me get on to the substance of the Bill. Everyone has now had a chance to read it. Amendments have been tabled by Opposition Back Benchers, Opposition Front Benchers, and Government Front Benchers, and I shall say something about that. We have basically accepted some of the amendments that the shadow Chancellor and his team tabled, and I will explain why later.
	I will begin, as we should do on such occasions, by putting on the record the House’s gratitude for the service that the Queen has provided to our country over many decades. Indeed, her time on the throne recently exceeded that of George III and she now has Queen Victoria in her sights. The recent visit by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to Canada and California reminded us that other members of the royal family also make an enormous contribution. As I said a couple of weeks ago—it is a view shared by nearly everyone in the House—we want a system that provides the Queen with dignity and allows her and her family to do their official jobs, which in her case is Head of State, but to do so in a way that is accountable, transparent and delivers value for money for the taxpayer.
	The current system of financial support has some very serious shortcomings. It is very inflexible, so money saved in one spending area such as travel cannot be spent in another area such as the maintenance of royal palaces. It is not very transparent, as the National Audit Office is not the auditor of royal finances; that is done by the permanent secretary to the Treasury. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), the former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, for the work it did in recent years to look at value for money studies on particular areas of royal financing, which has been quite opaque and which this legislation seeks to change. Critically, the current system has relied on a reserve of public money that was built up over the past 20 years and is now depleted. That was a crucial part of the royal household’s annual funding for the continuance of their official duties. That money has run out, so in other words the system is broken and we have to fix it.

Kevan Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we are have true transparency in the costs of the royal household, we need to know about all expenditure, including, as I suggested a couple of weeks ago, the contribution made to the household by the Ministry of Defence in terms of staff? We learnt last week from The Mail on Sundaythat Prince Charles has apparently objected to the full costs of the royal flight being put on the royal household, which effectively means that the MOD is subsidising the household. If we are to get the true costs, do we not need full transparency on everything paid to the royal household?

George Osborne: I will move on shortly to some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised two weeks ago on the use of accommodation on the royal estate, for example by the MOD, and say something on that and other areas of royal spending. The Bill establishes a distinction between the royal family’s public expenditure and their private finances. It is a long-established principle of the system that their private finances, for example from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, are their private money. There are checks and balances on that, such as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster having to be a member of the Government. We are saying that all the royal family’s public expenditure, which goes to their official duties and those parts of the royal estate that are not part of their private income or assets, should all now be auditable by the National
	Audit Office and that the Public Accounts Committee should be able to look at it. That is a fairly dramatic increase in the transparency before Parliament.

Kevan Jones: rose —

Ian Davidson: rose —

George Osborne: Let me just answer this point before giving way again.
	Although I do not want to speak for the Comptroller and Auditor General or the PAC, I suspect that if they wanted to look at the funding arrangements between the MOD and the royal family, they would be able to do so under the provisions of this legislation.

Kevan Jones: A couple of weeks ago I welcomed the increased transparency in the auditing process that the proposals bring forward, but if we are to determine the size of the sovereign grant—it is £30-odd million a year—surely a good starting point would be to find out what the actual cost of the royals doing their public duties is. I accept that some of the things the Ministry of Defence does are directly linked to the royals’ public duties and I do not suggest for one minute that the royal household should subsidise that, but surely to determine the size of the sovereign grant we need a better understanding of all costs coming from the public purse, whether from the Ministry of Defence or any other Government Department.

George Osborne: Let me give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) and then I will answer both hon. Gentlemen’s points.

Ian Davidson: The Chancellor mentioned his view that income from the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster is private money of the royal family. Surely he recognises that in the previous Parliament the Public Accounts Committee established quite clearly that that is not the case—that this is not the private property of the monarch or her family but a trust established by the nation in order to fund the various members of the royal family. That is different from saying that it is the private property of the royal family themselves.

George Osborne: I should make it clear that it is an established principle that the income from that property, which is held in trust, is for the private purposes of the royal family.
	In response to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), I point out that there are of course some areas of royal financing—I will come on to say something about royal protection—where it is very difficult to be public about some of the sums of money involved. The Bill—I hope that we will soon get into the meat of it—is a mechanism for helping to continue the current level of spending. As I say, it is perfectly within the rights of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, if they want to, to look at payments from the Ministry of Defence, but that has to be a matter for them.

Matthew Hancock: As the most senior member of the Public Accounts Committee in the Chamber—because I am the only one here—I think
	that I speak for everybody on that Committee when I say that we welcome the additional transparency and very much look forward to bringing the royal household before it to answer the questions that have rightly been raised across the Chamber.

George Osborne: I thank my hon. Friend. When the Chair of the PAC, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), spoke in the debate two weeks ago, she was very generous in her tribute and made it pretty clear that the PAC would be getting to work on its job. I served on the PAC, as its most junior member, with the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, and I remember us making an interesting visit to Kensington palace to investigate royal finances. For some years, therefore, the PAC has been establishing a reputation for examining the books in this area.

Paul Flynn: rose —

Kevan Jones: rose —

George Osborne: I would like to make a little progress, if both hon. Gentlemen will allow me. Let me say a little more about the Bill, and then I will be happy to take questions.
	Clause 1 proposes the creation a sovereign grant designed around three principles. First, it is sustainable, so that it provides reliable, long-term financing for the sovereign that is free from annual political argument but gives the House of Commons proper checks and controls. Secondly, it is flexible in dealing with the problem I described whereby money saved on travel cannot be spent on palace maintenance and vice versa. Thirdly, it is accountable, as I have been saying, because of the historic increase in parliamentary scrutiny of royal expenditure.
	Because the Queen is one of the few Heads of State in the world who is genuinely completely above the party political fray, I want to take this opportunity to thank my opposite number, the shadow Chancellor, and his team for conducting themselves in a very proper way as the loyal Opposition in asking questions. We will come on to the questions that he has rightly asked. [ Interruption. ] I suggest that his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), banks this moment, because it might not come again in this Parliament. We have tried to be as open as possible. I know that members of the shadow Chancellor’s team met the Treasury officials on the Bill team yesterday. As I will explain, I propose to accept a couple of his amendments.
	The shadow Chancellor asked four questions in the debate two weeks ago. I propose, for the rest of my remarks, to answer those four questions. It will be up to him and the House to decide whether they are adequate answers, but I thought that that was the best way to approach this matter. His first question was about the level of the sovereign grant, the second was about the mechanism for uprating it, the third was about the new arrangements for greater parliamentary scrutiny, and the fourth, which relates to some of the interventions we have just heard, was about the way in which the Government provide other forms of support to the royal family. I will take each question in turn.
	On the level of the sovereign grant, as we discussed two weeks ago, for many centuries the Government of the day have used taxpayers’ money to fund the official duties of the monarch. In return for that financial support, every King and Queen since George III in 1760 has agreed to surrender for their lifetime the full income of the Crown Estate to the Government. Nothing in the Bill changes that. The Crown Estate’s profits will continue to flow into the Exchequer, as they have done for the past 250 years, and we will continue to use them for general public expenditure. The funding for the monarch will continue to be provided by the taxpayer out of the money voted in the estimates.
	Our approach is new in the sense that we are choosing a new reference point for the calculation of the support that we give the sovereign. We propose that the Queen should receive a grant equivalent to 15% of the profits made by the Crown Estate in the financial year two years earlier. To put it another way, the sovereign grant in 2013-14, which is the first year in which the mechanism will operate, will be equivalent to 15% of the Crown Estate’s profits in 2011-12. Why do it in that way? We could of course have chosen some other measure. We chose this mechanism partly because it establishes the historical connection between the Crown Estate and financial support for the monarch. The real reason was that we were looking for a mechanism that was broadly in line with the economy and that would be more permanent.
	One important change in the Bill, which was referred to in the debate on the time resolution, is that we will no longer require Parliaments—I hope future Parliaments—to pass primary legislation within six months of the arrival on the throne of a new monarch, which is the case under the civil list arrangements. We are trying to establish arrangements that are not to do with the current personality of the monarch, but that endure beyond that and allow the royal household to plan for the future with certainty.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the theoretical circumstance that a new monarch decided to keep the Crown Estate revenues, it would be open to such a monarch to do so?

George Osborne: I think that that is pretty unlikely and pretty theoretical, to be honest. Since 1760, it has been an established precedent that the monarch hands over the revenues of the Crown Estate to the Government of the day. There are many powers that we vest in our monarch. The Queen has wisely, like her predecessors, chosen not to use those powers. As I say, I think that that question is pretty theoretical.

Paul Flynn: In the debate two weeks ago, the Member who represents the middle ages, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), suggested that the Queen paid income tax at a higher rate than any other citizen. Will the new arrangements be so transparent that we know the precise rate of tax the monarch pays and whether the monarch gets the expected windfall of revenue from wind and tidal generation in their 15%? If that revenue becomes excessive, will it be curtailed to a suitable level?

George Osborne: I will deal in my remarks with that specific point about what will happen if the revenues of the Crown Estate suddenly grow beyond people’s expectations, or even in line with the expectations of those who think that there will be a windfall from the marine estate.

Tristram Hunt: The guidance to the Bill suggests:
	“The Crown Estate is not the sovereign’s private property”.
	However, we know that in 1760, as the guidance states, George III
	“surrendered these revenues (but not ownership of the capital assets)”.
	Where do we stand on the clarity of ownership?

George Osborne: It is understood that there are certain pieces of property, such as Buckingham palace, Windsor castle and the Crown Estate, that belong to the institution of the monarchy, and certain pieces of property and assets that are the private property and assets of the Windsor family. That is a well-established precedent and has been recognised by the House for many decades. Nothing in the Bill changes that.

Ian Davidson: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give way on that point?

George Osborne: I will give way on that point and then make some progress on clause 1.

Ian Davidson: I am very grateful. The Chancellor is undoubtedly correct that some pieces of property are tied in with the institution of the monarchy, such as Buckingham palace, but the coastline of Scotland and the undersea surface are not intimately connected with the monarchy and have never, as far as I am aware, been visited by the monarchy. In those circumstances, I am not clear why the two categories are being conflated. Surely it would be better, if the Chancellor wants a method that is tied to growth in the economy, if it were simply tied to, say, gross domestic product. If GDP went down the Queen and the monarchy would suffer the same as the rest of us, and if it went up, they would benefit in line with the rest of us. That would be better than tying the fund to a measure that I envisage will make it grow at a far greater rate than the economy as a whole.

George Osborne: First, I do not want to speak for the Queen, but I think she is quite familiar with the Scottish coastline.

Chris Ruane: Underwater?

George Osborne: Let us try to keep focused on the issue at hand.
	Secondly, I completely accept that I could have brought other mechanisms before the House, but the Crown Estate is a large commercial property company that is run in a pretty conservative way. It is not a bad proxy for how the country and the economy are doing. That is why we are proposing this mechanism, but of course if people want to propose something else they are entitled to do so.

Kevan Jones: Will the Chancellor give way?

George Osborne: May I make some progress before taking a few further interventions?
	I should just mention, although the change to the Duchy of Cornwall is in a later clause, that as I explained to the House a couple of weeks ago, all Dukes of Cornwall are heirs to the throne, but not all heirs to the throne are Dukes of Cornwall. As a result, there is potential for there to be an heir to the throne who was not the Duke of Cornwall, because the Duke of Cornwall can only be the eldest son of the monarch. The heir to the throne could be either a daughter, granddaughter or grandson of the monarch, and they would not have access to the duchy’s income. The Bill proposes a change to that, but does not propose to change the Act of Settlement.

Keith Vaz: rose —

George Osborne: I suspect that the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee wants to intervene on that point.

Keith Vaz: I feel very guilty that the Chancellor has been speaking for so long and, because of all the interventions, is only on clause 1. I will not detain him for long, but I thank him for giving way. Will he update the House during the course of his speech, if he ever gets to complete it, on the negotiations that have been conducted by the Deputy Prime Minister with the Prime Ministers of 17 other Commonwealth countries, and let us know whether there has been any progress on the matter?

George Osborne: I think I will leave it to the Deputy Prime Minister to update the House on that. It is one of the many benefits that come from being Deputy Prime Minister that he gets to conduct these important negotiations. [Interruption.] They are extremely important negotiations. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) makes a good point in reminding the House that this question involves a lot of other countries. That explains why something that people assume would be quite simple to deal with in the House of Commons is not.
	Let me talk about the actual numbers. How much is 15% of the Crown Estate profit, and how does it compare with what the royal family has spent in recent years on its official duties? In 2006, they spent £33 million; in 2007-08, they spent £35 million; and then £37 million and £34 million. The latest annual accounts, which were last week, showed that they spent £32 million. The amount varies a bit, because one-off capital projects are either undertaken or not in given years, but the average of the past five years is £34 million. It is interesting to note that it was £49 million 20 years ago, so the latest figure shows quite a dramatic reduction compared with what they used to spend. In real terms, the reduction is more than 50%.

Kevan Jones: That is very interesting, but if we do not know which Government Departments are subsidising the royal household, how can we tell whether those efficiencies are real ones? I suspect that in some cases, Departments are cross-subsidising them. At the moment, the grant in aid for certain palaces comes from, for example, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
	I know that in 1999, Marlborough house was included as part of that. Will there be limitations on what other royal properties can be added so that the sovereign grant can be spent on them?

George Osborne: I will get back to the hon. Gentleman specifically on that point—I do not have specific information on Marlborough house with me at the moment—but on his broader point, for the first time, we will allow the National Audit Office to crawl over the arrangements that he describes.
	I was going to go on to explain that some senior members of the Ministry of Defence and our military live in properties that are rented from the Crown Estate at below the market rate. The properties are within extremely secure zones, and it would not be possible to rent them to virtually anyone else. That arrangement suits the MOD, because it gets properties—not very many—at below the market rate, and equally, it suits the royal estates, in that they can rent out properties that they would not be able to rent out otherwise.
	Let me talk about those sums. As I have pointed out, the average over the past five years is £34 million, which is much less than 20 years ago, when it was £49 million. In 2013-14—the first year in which the new sovereign grant mechanism will apply—the level will be determined by the profits in 2011-12, as I said earlier. We do not know precisely what those profits will be, because we are in the middle of the financial year, but the recently published Crown Estate annual report for last year showed profits of £231 million, and the Crown Estate confirms that that is pretty much what it is expecting in profits for 2011-12. The result of all that—this is the key point for the House—is that the sovereign grant in 2013-14 would be £34 million, which is in line with the average for the past five years. I would not say that that is a coincidence, because we have partly designed the mechanism to ensure that that has happened.
	If projections for the Crown Estate are correct over the rest of this Parliament, we should see a real-terms cut of up to 9% in the funding for the official duties of the sovereign in that period.

Ian Davidson: The Chancellor will be aware, from discussions on the Scotland Bill, of a proposal for part of the Crown Estate to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, or handed to local authorities, community groups and so on. What would happen to the Crown Estate and the money going to the royalty if that proposal were passed?

George Osborne: That is not something that the Government are proposing today. If we were to propose it, we would of course address the impact of such a decision on the royal finances. I am assuming that even under such arrangements, the Queen would remain the Queen of Scots. I believe that most of us are happy with the current arrangements.

Angus MacNeil: Will the Chancellor give way?

George Osborne: I will give way, but then I really must make more progress.

Angus MacNeil: Will the money from the Crown Estate be paid directly to the royal family or will it go to a third party?

George Osborne: The money is not paid directly. It comes into the Exchequer, like other revenues, and is then paid out to the royal family. It is paid out of general public funds through estimates voted by Parliament. The only link is that we have a formula for how much we give the royal family. However, there is no direct transfer of money from the Crown Estate to the royal family.

Paul Flynn: rose —

George Osborne: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will make some progress.
	I hope that I have answered the shadow Chancellor’s first question about the level of funds. In the end, it is a matter of judgment whether £34 million or so is the right amount for the future. The newspapers’ reaction to my statement a couple of weeks ago was not much of a guide. The Independent headline read, “Queen guaranteed £35m ‘recession-proof’ income”, while The Daily Telegraph wrote, “Monarchy ‘shorn of its dignity’ to save money”. I think we probably got it about right somewhere in between the two.
	That leads to the second and probably most important question that the shadow Chancellor asked: how can we ensure that the sovereign grant is neither too high nor too low, and what can we do about it if it is judged to be either? Basically, the Bill introduces a number of important safeguards. First, it provides for a reserve fund so that any unspent surplus from the sovereign grant that year will go into a reserve fund. Under the civil list, there has always been a reserve fund. Indeed, it reached £37 million early last decade. We propose that the reserve fund should be capped so that it does not go above about 50% of the annual grant. In other words, assuming that the grant is likely to be £34 million, the reserve fund would not be allowed to rise above £17 million. However, it is right that the royal household has a reserve to call upon for major capital works that it needs to undertake, although, as I said, we are introducing for the first time a cap on that reserve.
	The Bill retains as the three royal trustees the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of the Privy Purse. It is our responsibility to act in any given year to ensure that the reserve remains within that 50% cap. If it is going to be higher, we can act to reduce the cash going to the royal household through the grant to below 15% of Crown Estate profits. That is one check.

Kevan Jones: rose —

George Osborne: May I set out the checks and then invite questions—I mean interventions? I am not going to make the mistake of some right hon. Members in thinking that interventions are questions.
	The second check concerns the in-year controls that the Treasury operates for all public expenditure. The permanent secretary to the Treasury remains the accounting officer for the disbursal of Treasury funds, and the Keeper of the Privy Purse will be the accounting officer for the royal spending we are talking about and can be summoned and asked to give account for that. The hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) asked whether Buckingham palace will be able to open for
	longer this year than it did last year. I can confirm that that will be the case, as the palace is looking for additional sources of income.
	The key check, however, for ensuring that the level of funds is appropriate and that the 15% amount is being paid will be the review of the 15% mechanism. The legislation requires that a review is carried out seven years after the Bill comes into effect and every seven years thereafter. The shadow Chancellor and his team have suggested some amendments. I have discussed them with him and I am now proposing, through Government manuscript amendments today, basically to accept his amendments. That means that the first review will be carried out four years after the grant comes into effect—he suggested three years, but having discussed it, I have decided on four years—and therefore that the first review will be carried out in 2016. That will be one year after the general election, which is a good and sensible moment for us to review royal finances.
	I am also accepting the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment that proposes a five-yearly, instead of seven-yearly, review thereafter. In other words, in every Parliament, assuming that the fixed-term Parliament provisions are adhered to, the review will take place one year after the general election. There will be a review in every Parliament, assuming that they are five-year Parliaments.

Kevan Jones: Will the Chancellor explain how the controls over the reserve will work? Who will take the decisions about how it is spent? It does not take a genius or a financial wizard to work out that, if we draw down the reserve, we can certainly keep up the annual income at 15%. Who will have a say over how the reserve is spent? Will the Government of the day have any control over how it is spent?

George Osborne: First, the reserve will be audited by the National Audit Office, as the legislation makes clear. Secondly, the trustees of the royal finances—the Keeper of the Privy Purse, who is the Queen’s appointment, but also the Chancellor and the Prime Minister of the day—have oversight of the reserve. That is similar to the current arrangement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer—who undertakes this work more than the Prime Minister—and the Treasury will ensure that the reserve is used for proper purposes. As I have said, the reserve is also accountable to the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Paul Flynn: I have listened carefully to what the Chancellor has said, but I am still baffled as to why a simple mechanism that could be easily understood has not been used, perhaps similar to the one used to change pensions every year. Instead, we are to have a complex system under which, if the Crown Estate does well, royalty will win, and if it does badly, the taxpayer will lose.

George Osborne: As I have said, we could have chosen another mechanism, but I thought that it was not unreasonable to take a large, small-c conservatively run property company to determine expenditure by the royal household, given that a lot of its expenditure is on property maintenance and the like. I completely accept
	that not every Member of the House will agree with that, but the effect, which is surely the important thing, is that the amount of money going from the public purse to the royal family will be broadly the same. They were receiving about £34 million on average from the civil list, the palaces grant and the travel grant, plus the money put into the reserves by the taxpayer, and they will go on receiving £34 million. We can have a debate about the mechanism, but the effect will be pretty much to continue through this Parliament with the sums that they were getting during the last one. We are of course talking in cash terms, which will mean about a 9% real cut, coming on top of a more than 15% real cut over the past 20 years.
	I know that we are still debating clause 1, but I hope that the Committee will acknowledge that, in accepting the shadow Chancellor’s amendments to clause 7, we have tried to show that we are open to argument and open to trying to work on a cross-party basis. We want to ensure that the Bill proceeds with the consent of those in all parts of the House of Commons.
	I want briefly to deal with the shadow Chancellor’s third and fourth questions. He asked about the issue of accountability, and he has tabled amendments proposing annual value-for-money studies. I would much rather leave the discretion with the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee. If they want to undertake such studies, they may do so, but I propose to leave that discretion with them. I remind the Committee that we are undertaking a pretty historic transfer of accountability to Parliament here. Parliament has fought for many decades to get scrutiny of the official expenditure of the royal family, and that is now happening through the Bill. Of course, the Public Accounts Committee will be able to ask the Keeper of the Privy Purse, as the accounting officer, to come before it to give evidence.
	Let me deal with the fourth question, which was about royal protection. I am afraid that I will not be able to answer the shadow Chancellor’s request here. I have looked into it and made quite a number of inquiries to probe whether it would be possible for me to give the Committee more information about how much is spent on royal security. I have to say that I have run into a metaphorical brick wall in Whitehall, probably for very good reason, which is that it would not be appropriate—this was a view taken by Home Secretaries over many years—to reveal how much was spent on royal security because that might present a security risk. Unfortunately, I am not able to accede to the shadow Chancellor’s request. Let me reassure the Committee, however, that in the process, I have taken a look at the protection arrangements and costs, and I certainly satisfied myself that they are reasonable, proportionate, in line with the current threat assessment and pretty cost-effective. I am fairly confident that the Queen and her family are adequately protected.
	I hope that I have answered the various questions asked. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough asked a question about Frogmore, particularly the mausoleum for Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. The royal household has confirmed that it expects to carry out conservation work on the mausoleum over the next five to eight years, so in a few years’ time, my hon. Friend will be able to visit a much restored and improved mausoleum at Frogmore.

Stephen Williams: Given that the mausoleum is currently on the English Heritage buildings at risk register, will the Chancellor confirm whether what he announced means that it will shortly be removed from that register?

George Osborne: The honest answer is that I have absolutely no idea, but I will find out and let the hon. Gentleman know. I might even be able to find out during this debate.

Kevan Jones: rose —

George Osborne: I give way one final time, but then I shall conclude.

Kevan Jones: Has not the Chancellor just confirmed that we are giving the royal household freedom to spend the sovereign’s grant on additional properties? [Interruption.] It is an additional property if the facts are understood. At the moment, the properties covered by grant in aid are Buckingham palace, St James’s palace, Clarence house and Marlborough House Mews, the residency opposite Kensington palace, the Royal Mews royal paddock and Windsor castle and the buildings in the Great park. Are we thus going to see an extension? Who in the royal household makes the decision on that, or does the Chancellor have any say over which other properties not currently covered by the grant in aid from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport can be added in, increasing costs?

George Osborne: We do not propose to add anything in. Frogmore is part of the Windsor castle estate, or part of the Windsor Great park, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman knew before he made his intervention.
	Let me sum up this rather lengthy clause 1 stand part debate. We do not want a cut-price monarchy; nor do we want an excessively lavish monarchy. What the country wants is a monarchy properly funded to do the job we ask of it. It does that job well. Long may that continue. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Edward Balls: I commend your patience and flexibility, Mr Hoyle, in allowing this clause stand part debate to include the status of mausoleums and the role of English Heritage, which somewhat stretches the clause. Having a Second Reading-type debate on clause stand part in this way is probably a revolutionary approach to parliamentary procedure. After the events of the last few days, that may not be surprising. However, I should reassure the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that he need not feel destabilised by my use of the word “revolutionary” in this context.
	A fortnight ago, during the debate on the financial motion relating to the Bill, the Opposition made it clear that
	“the monarchy continues, and must continue, to play a vital role in the affairs of our nation in the new century, but that to play this role and to command public support, the royal household must… be financed in a proper, open and fair way”.
	We expressed our intention to support the Chancellor’s proposals to reform the current 250-year-old arrangements and
	“to strike a fair and workable balance between the legitimate needs of the household and the interests of the taxpayer.”
	However, we also made clear that it was
	“the responsibility of Her Majesty’s Opposition to scrutinise the actions of the Government to make sure that it is done in a fair and proper way”.
	Those are the guiding principles that lie behind today’s debates on clause 1 and, more widely, our amendments.
	In that debate a fortnight ago, I cautioned the Chancellor that
	“At a time when many families and businesses are under real financial pressure”
	there was more work to be done, and a need for more “detail and reassurance” on Second Reading—which we have not had—or in Committee
	“to establish a consensus not only across the Dispatch Box but in the country as a whole in support of these reforms.”—[Official Report, 30 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 1150.]
	I also asked the Chancellor to provide more clarity and detail on the level of the sovereign grant and the wider costs of the royal household, the arrangements for regular parliamentary scrutiny, and the mechanisms for uprating the grant.
	I thank the Chancellor for the detailed way in which he has sought to answer those questions in the debate so far, and for the serious consideration that he has given to our amendments. I am also grateful to him for giving Members more information than they were given two weeks ago. However, it is difficult to hold a debate such as this when time is so constricted, and I share the concern expressed about that by Members on both sides of the House. As I said to the Chancellor earlier, I think that he could have provided even more information to help Members to understand the debate.
	Setting the sovereign grant at 15% of Crown revenues will mean, from next year until the end of the current Parliament, a 3.2% real-terms rise in the grant available to the royal household. That is significant, and is set against a real-terms fall over the Parliament as a whole.
	Let me turn to the thinking behind our amendments, and respond to the points made by the Chancellor. It is right that Parliament and the National Audit Office should be properly able to scrutinise whether the Chancellor is setting the sovereign grant at the right level, given both the costs and the pressures on the royal household. On one hand, the Queen has managed to deliver a 50% reduction in the total expenditure of the royal household over the past two decades, but these proposals, and the cash floor, effectively mean that the process of making further efficiency savings has effectively come to an end.

Kevan Jones: I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but unless we know the full amount of money that is being paid to the royal household by other Departments—for instance, the Ministry of Defence—how can we determine, first, that those efficiencies are real and this is not just about moving money across and, secondly, that 15% is the right level?

Edward Balls: I shall deal with that point in a minute.

Andrew Murrison: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if those costs are indeed taken into account the reduction between 1991-92 and the present day becomes even greater? The figures do not include, for instance, the royal yacht, which has been decommissioned and is no longer a burden on the Ministry of Defence.

Edward Balls: What concerns me is not the fall in expenditure over the past 10 or 20 years, which most people would consider sensible—notwithstanding the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—but the fact that we are set to see real-terms rises in the years ahead. That is where we should focus our scrutiny.
	On the other hand—on the side of the ledger that does not feature efficiency savings—we are seeing rising pressures on the royal family. As I said a couple of weeks ago, the combination of the success of the wonderful royal wedding and the visit of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to Canada and the USA, following Her Majesty’s historic visit to Ireland, has resulted in a rise in both the popularity of the royal family and the demands on them around the world, and that trend is set to continue. It is important that we scrutinise whether the resources that are in place are sufficient and right.
	I raised in the last debate the fact that it has been reported that a number of members of the royal family have had their security reduced or removed over the past year. I accept the Chancellor’s assurances that there are no concerns in that regard, but it was right that we raised the issue. We have tabled amendments to clauses 2 and 4 that are designed to ensure both that there would be full and independent scrutiny of all the different aspects of royal expenditure, including the level of the grant and, more widely, value for money and the effective spending of resources across the piece, and that the National Audit Office would have sufficient powers and resources to do that job. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham asked about wider expenditure outside the sovereign grant. As I understand it, it should now properly come within the purview of the NAO to look across the piece. In our upcoming debate on those clauses, perhaps we could receive an assurance that the NAO will be able to look at all the budgets, not just this particular one. Clearly, the NAO will not be able to reach a judgment on value for money in terms of royal household expenditure under this grant unless it can do so in the context of the other expenditures by Government Departments for the royal household. It is important to maintain royal protection and security, but protecting value for money is also important. The NAO and the Public Accounts Committee will need to respond to the issue my hon. Friend has raised and make sure they can see the full picture. I say again that we seek assurances in the upcoming debate on those clauses that the NAO will be able to look right across the royal household’s expenditures, rather than only at the expenditure financed by the sovereign grant.
	The Chancellor has moved very much in our direction on our second issue. I argued a couple of weeks ago that, given the historic importance of these reforms and the inevitable uncertainties at the beginning of a new financing regime, Parliament would need to keep a closer eye on the arrangements. I also said that that needed to be consistent with the Chancellor’s proper desire to give the royal household stability and certainty. In our judgment, waiting seven years for a review, and certainly seven years for the first review, was too long. In our amendments to clause 7, we propose that the first review should happen in the period up to April 2015—three years from now—with five-yearly reviews after that. The Chancellor has gone pretty much to where we would like to be on these matters. Therefore,
	we thank him for taking our concerns seriously and making sure Parliament will be able to take an early view on these arrangements.
	On our third issue, however, I have a continuing concern, which has prompted our amendment 8 to clause 7. The issue is the level of profits from the Crown Estate. The Chancellor has told the House that
	“we need a funding mechanism that prevents the sovereign coming to Parliament each year for resources, and that provides funding broadly in line with the growth of the economy…There will be a cash floor to protect the monarch from cash cuts, but basically the monarch will do as well as the economy is doing.”—[Official Report, 30 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 1146.]
	We do not know going forward that the figure of 15% of Crown revenues will prove to rise in line with the overall performance of the economy. That obviously depends on the performance of the Crown Estate and Crown revenues. As I pointed out, the Crown Estate income from renewables grew by 44% in the year 2009-10, and it is widely expected to increase again in future years because of the financial potential of the exploitation of wind and tidal energy on the foreshore around the country.
	The Crown Estate’s annual report describes current growth as “exponential” and growth over the next 10 years as “significant”. Given the potentially significant changes in income from renewables and, perhaps, wider sources, as well as the prospect that this could lead to an unintended rise in either reserves or, as described in the Bill, simply the overall level of expenditure, it is important that the proposals are robust in meeting significant unintended rises in revenues.
	Some have called for a cap on the overall level of the sovereign grant. Instead, we have tabled amendment 8, which would require the trustees to review the arrangements if the Crown Estate’s income were to rise faster in the previous financial year than the underlying trend growth rate of the economy. I think that the public would expect the trustees to review matters immediately if revenues were to rise much faster than had been expected. I also think that the amendment is fully consistent not only with the spirit of the Chancellor’s reforms, but with their detailed intention, as he set out in his spending review speech. Therefore, I ask him to look at the issue again over the next hour and a half. Our proposal is fully consistent with protecting stability for the monarchy and the proper role of Parliament in scrutinising the arrangements. In order to ensure that his reforms are implemented as he intended, we should agree to the amendment.

Paul Flynn: As I understand it, the royal trustees are the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Keeper of the Privy Purse. Does my right hon. Friend not think that we would get a more balanced decision if Members of this House were represented among the trustees? They would give a much better opinion than the establishment one on this issue.

Edward Balls: It is obviously nostalgic for me to be back in Committee debating with the Chancellor of the Exchequer across the Dispatch Box, although I would remind my hon. Friend—these moments have been rare in my parliamentary career—that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are both Members of this House. Therefore, they are representatives of both the Government and
	the House of Commons in those discussions. The important thing is that the trustees should not be able to sit on their hands if there is an unexpected surge in revenues that is faster than the trend growth rate of the economy. When the trustees produce a report, Parliament should be able to scrutinise it properly, after a report of the NAO. The latter is clearly set out in the legislation, but at the moment, whether there is a review in the five-year period is at the discretion of the trustees. Parliament should legislate today to say, “If you see something happening to revenues that is outside the Chancellor’s intentions as clearly set out by him, then there should be an immediate review.” It would still be for the trustees to decide what recommendation to make. We are not imposing a cap, because although some would like that, it would be outside the Chancellor’s intentions. I said from the beginning that I would support his reforms, and our amendment 8 delivers his reforms in detail. Therefore, I hope that he will reconsider and support our amendment.

Kevan Jones: I think the Chancellor has tried to have an effect on that by, for example, putting a cap on the reserve, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is also important to see how the reserve is spent? I said to the Chancellor that it does not take a genius or a financial wizard to work out that the way to do it is by keeping the reserve as low as possible by spending the money, so the Government’s proposals will actually lead to more inefficiency, rather than driving up efficiency.

Edward Balls: As I said, part of the motivation behind our amendments to the clauses that deal with the role of the NAO is precisely to ensure that the value-for-money question is at the centre of the NAO’s thinking and the PAC’s reports to this House. I am happy with the Chancellor’s view that it should be for the PAC and the NAO to decide when to do those reports, but they clearly cannot have a report looking at value for money without looking at all aspects, and that includes all expenditure that is financed by the taxpayer, and the use of reserves. For Parliament, that is the right mechanism. I understand that not everyone in the House will agree with those proposals, which is why it is important to get on to that debate.
	Sadly, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is not here, but in the last debate I referred to the fact that he voted against these reforms when they were last debated in substance in this House in 1971 and mentioned his barracking of Norman St John-Stevas from a sedentary position. I have since checked my hon. Friend’s subsequent contributions. In recent years, he has questioned Chancellors and Prime Ministers regularly in this House, doing so most recently in the July 2000 debate on the renewal of the civil list. His best contribution came when he described the £7.9 million civil list settlement to Her Majesty as
	“a pretty big winter heating allowance…If the Prime Minister really wants to save money, the answer is to kill two birds with one stone by shipping them off to the millennium dome, where they can have a zone apiece.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 164-5.]
	That option is not now available to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and it is not one that would find any support from Members on the Labour Benches. Strong
	views have always been expressed here, and in the 1971 debates considerably stronger views were put by Members on the Opposition Front Bench than anything that has been said in this debate, where we have sought to help the Chancellor to deliver the intention of his reforms. That is the motivation behind our amendments.
	It is important to say that we are debating a significant reform; it is the biggest reform of the royal finances since the accession of King George III in 1760. I read through the Hansard record of the contributions made in recent decades by my hon. Friend, so I thought that I should read the pre-Hansard record of the debate and resolution in this House on 25 November 1760, when the then Government set out clearly their view that the use of the revenues of the Crown Estate was for Parliament to determine. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for North East Somerset recalls that particular debate.
	In the recent House of Commons Library note on these matters provided to Members, the clear view of the experts in this House was:
	“The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch. It cannot be sold by the Monarch, nor do any profits from it go to the sovereign.”
	I think that that is the position as things stand. It was also the argument made on 25 November 1760 by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Henry Bilson Legge—probably a relative of the hon. Gentleman—who said that it was for Parliament to determine the use of these revenues and that they should do so in a manner
	“as may best conduce to the utility and satisfaction of the public.”
	In return, at the end of that debate the House resolved that
	“there be granted to his Majesty, during his life, such a revenue”
	as would
	“support of his Majesty’s household, and of the honour and dignity of the crown”.
	That was how the House of Commons resolved that issue on that day.
	For 250 years, the Crown Estate has been at the disposal of this Parliament but, as then so today, it is the responsibility of Parliament to ensure that a fair and proper balance is struck between the interests of the taxpaying public and the needs and dignity of the royal household. As we enter the second decade of the 21st century, that is our task, not just today, but in the months and years to come.

Edward Leigh: I am humbled, Mr Evans, that you should have called me before my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I am grateful that there is somebody who is even more royalist and reactionary than me in the Chamber; my hon. Friend reminds me of one of the French courtiers who was plus royaliste que le roi—more royalist than the king—and that is no bad thing.
	Of course I agree with the substance of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is trying to do today, but I hope that he will accept a couple of bits of advice or warnings. The constitutional position of the monarch and Back Benchers is rather similar: we warn and we advise. The difference is that the Queen does so in private and is listened to and we do so in public and were never listened to, but we will try our best.
	[Interruption.]
	Well, perhaps we are listened to sometimes. I am a bit worried about some parts of the Bill, particularly about how fixed in concrete the sum of money is.
	We all know that there is no point having the British monarchy as a cycling monarchy or having it on the cheap. I know from my experience of looking at the accounts during the last two Parliaments that they are right on the edge of the £34 million. If one was trying to maintain extremely expensive buildings—I am not just talking about Frogmore now, but about large and complex buildings such as Buckingham palace or places such as Windsor great park—one would struggle. Some people, particularly in this House and particularly those with a slightly republican bent, might say that we are all making sacrifices, but this is part of our national heritage and it is not as if they are living in anything like the whole palace. They have a modest flat: as we know from one of the tabloid stings, the Queen lives very modestly with her Tupperware in a small flat in Buckingham palace. Ultimately, we, the public, are benefiting from Buckingham palace, Windsor and St James’s palace and they must be properly maintained. I am not sure whether we might need looser arrangements so that—I will not use the phrase “raid the reserves”—there is some sort of mechanism to handle that. Will the Chancellor comment on that when he sums up? It is terribly important that there should not be a constant constraint on the treasurer of the royal household to skimp on maintaining the royal palaces, because that is clearly happening at the moment.

Paul Flynn: One example of many of royal spending was a trip by Prince Charles and Camilla from Buckingham palace to Balmoral for which the taxpayer—[ Interruption. ]

Jacob Rees-Mogg: On a point of order, Mr Evans. I wonder whether you would rule on the correct way of referring to Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall.

Nigel Evans: I think that respect for members of the royal family is warranted and it would therefore be appropriate to show proper respect in referring to them in the House.

Paul Flynn: I shall ask the question again. Is it an example of people with financial limits skimping when the heir to the throne and his wife take a journey that costs £29,000 without any public engagements being involved—the journey was a private one—and send that bill to the taxpayers?

Edward Leigh: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has made that point. He is making the precise point I want to make, although we come from different directions, of course. That is the danger. As so often happens in the House of Commons, we are rushing at things and there are many unforeseen consequences; it would have been preferable to consider the Bill more closely and for longer. The point that the hon. Gentleman has made will be made in the Public Accounts Committee and such subjects will be dragged into the public debate.
	Why do I think that is dangerous? Let me make it clear that I am not against the move in any way. I welcome it and I am grateful that the Chancellor had a private word to brief me on this before he made his announcement. I am grateful for what he is doing, which is in response to the constant campaign that we members of the PAC have waged for many years to have greater transparency. No present or previous member of the PAC and nobody in Parliament doubts that we want more transparency about the public duties, the official travel, the official expenses and so on. That is modern, transparent and right.
	The difficulty is where we draw the line. I am worried that the PAC and the Comptroller and Auditor General will gradually be dragged into the debate on precisely the sort of point that the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has made. How will the system work? The CAG will effectively be able to look at everything, but a defence is built into clause 13. The clause states:
	“Any reference to the support of Her Majesty’s official duties includes the maintenance of Royal Palaces and related land.”
	That is fair enough. Subsection (9) states:
	“Any reference to the Royal Household if limited to that Household so far as it is concerned with the support of Her Majesty’s official duties.”
	The clause also states:
	“Any reference to the use of resources is to their expenditure, consumption or reduction in value.”
	I suspect that subsection (9) was included to try to prevent the whole debate from widening to cover the private travel, private expenses and private servants of the royal family. Why is there a danger?

Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh: May I make some progress first? I want to develop this point and if the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied he can come back to me.
	If the PAC was a normal Select Committee that set its own agenda, we would have some people who were very pro-royal family and some who were not so pro, and there would be tremendous pressure on the Chairman in private sessions, with people saying, “We want to look at this aspect of travel,” “Why did the Prince of Wales make this official trip and spend all this money,” or “Why did they bring all their servants?” There would be a great argy-bargy. At the moment, our defence is that, uniquely, the PAC’s agenda is set not by the Committee or politicians but by the Comptroller and Auditor General. That acts as a kind of backstop to protect the royal family, but the changes could bring a real danger for them. Why? Because we do not live in an entirely fair world.
	The royal family is not like the Department for Work and Pensions—I shall not labour this point because I made it in the last debate on this. When the PAC looks at the DWP or another Department, it does its work and investigates the spending of billions of pounds, which is sometimes spent wisely and often not so wisely. With those reports there is limited public interest and the report tends to get into The Times, the Financial Times or the serious pages of The Guardian. With the royal family, things are completely different: not only is there massive public interest and huge pressure from journalists, but some newspapers have an agenda of constantly attacking the royal family and its members.

Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh: I am going to develop my point; the hon. Gentleman can come in later.
	We have seen that agenda in the Daily Mail campaign against the Prince of Wales and in the Murdoch press—against many members of the royal family. We are getting into dangerous territory.

Mark Spencer: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Edward Leigh: Let me go on a bit and then I shall give way to both hon. Members, as I want to be fair to both sides.
	When I was the Chairman of the Committee I put no pressure on the Comptroller and Auditor General, but members of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), who is present, Mr Alan Williams and others quite rightly had serious questions about the royal family. They took a particular view and were always agitating for us to do more work, but I was able to say that it was not my decision. It was the decision of the Comptroller and Auditor General who, frankly, took quite a conservative approach and did not allow many reports to come to the Committee or do much initial work. Although there is massive public and media interest in this issue, particularly in the tabloid press, there is much more important work that we need to be doing on public expenditure.
	Hon. Members might ask what I am worried about, given that we can surely rely on the Comptroller and Auditor General—although I think that he will be under a lot of pressure via members of the PAC because they are eternally under pressure from the media to raise these sorts of questions. Why am I worried about all this? Because I wonder whether clause 13 is an adequate defence. How do we define exactly what are the private affairs of the Queen? We know what she does in the homes that she owns—in Sandringham or Balmoral. We know about the gardener and the cook she employs and about private travel around the estate. That is completely out of all this. but what about what goes on in Buckingham palace and Windsor great park? Is the Comptroller and Auditor General going to be under pressure to investigate value for money, the number of servants and what happens with the private office? When does official travel start and when does private travel start? There have been attacks on Prince Andrew for taking official trips and then going on elsewhere to play golf. There will be more and more pressure mounting all the time and that could be extraordinarily damaging to the royal family, which is a very fragile institution. In no other major country is there a royal family; it survives on public opinion and I am afraid that there are some people, particularly in the tabloid press, who simply are not fair and who want to go on pushing and pushing because they want as damaging a story as possible. I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Newport West because he asks about precisely the sort of story that they will try to raise through the National Audit Office and the PAC.

Paul Flynn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, although I am sorry that he has not answered my question about why a multi-millionaire should send
	a bill to the taxpayer for a private visit. May I take him back to his previous speech to the House on this issue in which he spoke as the former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—the guardian of the taxpayer’s interest—when he said that he had approved royal spending that he described as “fantastically wasteful”? Is that the way to guard the taxpayer’s interest?

Edward Leigh: The fact is that we must take everything in the round. I was making comparisons with the Heads of State of Germany and Italy, which are republican institutions that cost more and have virtually no public impact whatsoever and do nothing for the economy. I am afraid that it makes absolutely no sense in providing value for money to Great Britain plc to get rid of the monarchy. I do not accept that the institution of the monarchy is fantastically wasteful.

Mark Spencer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we are talking not only about the Head of State but about the next in line to the crown of this great nation of ours, they should be allowed to travel in such a manner? Can he imagine a circumstance where the President of the United States arrived in the UK on easyJet? We should be proud that the head of this nation is allowed to travel in such style.

Edward Leigh: We live in such a public world now that the Prime Minister took Ryanair when he went on holiday.

Ian Davidson: I am grateful to the former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for giving way, and I have to tell my colleagues that he is not nearly as bad a man as he often appears. Does he accept that there is a difference between what the royal family undertake as their public duties, which should, quite rightly, be examined by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority or a similar organisation, and what they undertake in their private lives, which should not be accessible to the public? Does he accept that extravagances in their private lives should not be charged to the public purse? That really is the difference. Like the hon. Gentleman, I recognise that we do not wish to intrude into every element of that family’s life; but if they do not want us to intrude, they should not charge such things to the public.

Edward Leigh: I am not sure whether the Queen or the Prince of Wales charges “extravagant” aspects of their private lives to the public purse, but what worries me is that if Prince Charles went on an official trip to America and took so many hairdressers, butlers, private secretaries and all the rest, the media and the hon. Gentleman, if he was still a member of the PAC, would immediately demand a public inquiry, and there would be a gradual drip, drip of attacks in the tabloid press against the royal family. We should be aware of that and warn about it. That is why the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General is absolutely crucial; he is not a politician. The reason I am making these remarks—if he reads Hansard—is that he must stand firm and make an overall judgment.

Ian Davidson: I can assure the House that, when I have travelled abroad, I have certainly never taken a hairdresser with me.
	The sort of rules that apply to the Prime Minister ought to apply to the royal family in this context. The Prime Minister and senior members of the Government must have a certain degree of support and status when they travel abroad on parliamentary and official business. The royals similarly ought to have some status when they travel abroad. However, the two ought to be comparable. To be fair, the Prime Minister has never taken hairdressers, butlers, valets, chauffeurs or anything similar with him.

Edward Leigh: This debate is useful in a way, because it shows precisely the problem. I understand that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have taken extremely modest entourages and staff on previous trips. Apparently, the Duchess has had more than 37 different changes of outfit in America and Canada. I do not suppose that the Prime Minister or even the hon. Gentleman changes his outfit 37 times when he goes on Select Committee trips abroad. There is a completely different order of scale between a Head of State, who is part of the ornamental part of the constitution and who represents our country, and even the Prime Minister. If we are now to have questions and relentless pressure in the PAC about how many dresses need to be taken on every royal trip, it will be ridiculous, and it would start to make the royal family look more and more ridiculous. That is what I am warning against.

Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman think that this country’s defence budget should subsidise the royal flight? If we believe what was reported in The Mail on Sunday last week, the Ministry of Defence did the right thing by charging the going rate for use of the royal flight. Only because of complaints to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the Prince of Wales was that amount reduced. Therefore, every flight that the royal family takes is being subsidised by the defence budget. That cannot be right.

Edward Leigh: I do not know the exact truth about that particular aspect.

George Osborne: The part about my involvement is completely untrue.

Edward Leigh: All that I know—the Public Accounts Committee having had all those accounts over the past two decades—is that steps are constantly being taken to deliver a better-value-for-money monarchy. If that is not true, why has the cost gone down from £49 million to £34 million? I shall sit down now, because we are only on clause 1 stand part.

Paul Flynn: rose—

Edward Leigh: I will not give way; I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I want to emphasise this point to the Chancellor: I hope that there is a flexible arrangement, so that we can protect the structure of the royal palaces. I sincerely hope that the Comptroller and Auditor General will take a very conservative—with a small c—view of his responsibilities when he draws up reports, and that he will focus them absolutely and firmly on the public duties of the royal family, in the spirit of the Bill.

Stephen Phillips: rose—

Nigel Evans: Is the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) giving way, or has he sat down?

Edward Leigh: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) is desperate to get in, so I give way to him.

Stephen Phillips: I am not sure that I have ever been desperate to get into anything. I think it was in 2005, when my hon. Friend was the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, that the Committee published a report, which he will probably remember, that drew attention to a potential conflict of interest between the Duke of Cornwall and future Dukes of Cornwall. That is not addressed at all in the Bill. Does he share my hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deal with that point in his wind-up, and that the Government will look at the issue in future?

Edward Leigh: That is a serious and important point. We have had mention of the Duchy of Cornwall; I should say that we did some trailblazing work in our hearing about the duchy. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) will remember that we ranged widely over all aspects of its management. One of the issues that we raised was whether we should maximise resources—income and capital—for the present Duke of Cornwall, or for future generations. I hope that the Chancellor can also reply to that point when he winds up.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: As Members can see, there are at least six people trying to get in on the debate on this clause; we are incredibly time-limited, and I ask people to respect that.

Kevan Jones: The aim of the Bill is right: to provide the sovereign with the funds that she and other members of the royal family require to do their public duties. I do not think that there is any disagreement on that at all.
	On the point about how we arrived at 15%, I welcome the Chancellor’s acceptance of some of the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), but there are a few questions still to be answered. I understand why the amount is set at 15%—to get to the figure of £34 million in future years—but my concern is that if we are to have a proper look at what the sovereign costs, we should include all costs, and then determine that the Government or state should provide the money to the sovereign for carrying out those duties.
	I accept that there is greater transparency under the Bill, which is welcome, but the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) seems to think that we will somehow be intruding into areas into which we should not go. I am sorry, but if we are talking about public money, its spending has to be scrutinised, as does the spending of public money by any Government Department.
	My concern is that we arrived at the £34 million figure, based on 15%, without taking into account the moneys that go from Government Departments to the royal household to support the royal family in their duties. I shall talk about defence, an area that I know more about, as a former Defence Minister.
	A large number of individuals in the armed forces—I have asked how many—have a role supporting the royal household. Some people might question whether that is necessary, but I think that it is, because they play an important role in supporting the monarch and other members of the royal family. However, I do not think that the costs involved should come out of the defence budget, as they currently do. The costs should be taken from the moneys we pay to support the sovereign’s work, because those men and women of the armed forces clearly do an important job in supporting the sovereign in her duties as Head of State, but we do not know what those costs amount to.
	Similarly, is it legitimate for Her Majesty the Queen and other members of the royal family to use private aircraft for state duties? I fully support that, not just from a security point of view, but because of the status that we wish to give members of the royal family when they represent this country on royal duties, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) suggested. However, I do not think that the defence budget should be used to subsidise that expenditure. For example, if it costs a set amount for the RAF to fly Her Majesty or any other member of the royal family somewhere, that amount should rightly be met by the taxpayer if it is an official duty.

Mark Spencer: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that defending our nation includes defending our Head of State?

Kevan Jones: Yes, but what I am talking about does not relate to security. I am talking about equerries and other people who play a vital role in running the royal household and who are important in Her Majesty’s representational role. In the previous debate people tried to conflate the two issues, but I am talking about ceremonial duties that are being paid for from the defence budget.

Andrew Murrison: Until recently the hon. Gentleman was a Defence Minister, and a very good one, so I wonder, since he feels so passionately about this, what efforts he made to identify those costs.

Kevan Jones: I also chaired the value for money group in the Ministry of Defence, and those costs were on the radar screen for the work it was carrying out. There is a sense of grievance in the MOD and the armed forces that this money comes out of the defence budget. There should be some recognition of this vital work, but it should not come out of the defence budget. That would also avoid the nonsense that we saw last week in The Mail on Sunday, which claimed that the Prince of Wales and other members of the royal family stopped using the royal flight because the cost was being charged to the royal household. I understand that after representations were made to the Treasury the cost was reduced by £6,000 an hour for the use of one of the royal flights. Therefore, a basic subsidy is going to the royal household
	from the defence budget, which I do not think is right. If the full cost of the royal flight is £13,000 an hour, the Government should pay for that to support members of the royal family who need to travel on official duties. I have no problem with that, but I have a problem with where it comes from and how it is accounted for.

Michael Ellis: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that these military equerries and the like are on secondment from military duties? They remain military officers in the service of the Crown via the Ministry of Defence, so it is quite appropriate that they should be paid by the Ministry of Defence?

Kevan Jones: No, I am not suggesting that somehow they should be taken out of the military while they do these duties, because there is an important link between the royal household and the military, but I do not think that they should be paid for from the defence budget while they are on these duties. In trying to get full transparency in what the royal household costs and therefore what the sovereign grant should be, we need to know about all these other costs so that we assess what is needed to support the sovereign in her work as Head of State. There needs to be transparency.
	The Chancellor said earlier that the NAO could look at this, but there is nothing in the Bill that says it will look at costs in kind in relation to the Ministry of Defence and other budgets. If we are to ensure that the royal household has the money needed for the royal family to do their official duties, it is important that there is transparency and that the costs do not fall on the Ministry of Defence, for example.
	Some people argue that there should be a cap every year on the sovereign grant. That is possibly a bit too blunt a mechanism. I accept what the Chancellor has said about the size of the reserve. However, if we are to ensure that the efficiencies that have taken place so far in the royal household continue, we need to consider not only how the sovereign grant, but the reserve, is spent each year. It would be quite easy to run the reserve down each year to ensure that more money is needed every year. There needs to be some scrutiny of exactly how the reserve is spent.
	The next issue is what the sovereign grant is spent on. At the moment, some of the arrangements are totally inefficient in that the Government are paying the royal household and then being paid back for services. There is a debate to be had about whether the royal palaces are royal households or part of the history of this country that should be paid for by the taxpayer. The places currently covered by grant in aid are Buckingham palace, St James’s palace, Clarence house, the Royal Mews, the residence and offices in the area of Kensington palace, the royal paddock at Hampton Court, and Windsor castle and the buildings in Home park and Great park. The list is quite well defined. It would be interesting to know whether the sovereign grant will be limited to being spent on those places or there will be flexibility to use the money for other households. In 1990, Marlborough house was added to the list of properties that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport supports through grant in aid. To ensure that we are not cross-subsidising things that are already covered, it will be
	important for the Chancellor or the trustees to clarify exactly what the sovereign grant could be spent on; otherwise, other properties that are not currently covered by the civil list or grant in aid payments could be included. That is an important point.
	I take the point made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) about the titillation factor in looking at what the royal household spends money on. However, the core point is that this is Government—public—money. If we do not want the royal family to be denigrated but rather to gain support for them, one way would be to ensure that the sovereign grant is well spent and that people see that that is the case. We accept that some items are very expensive to undertake, such as the upkeep of royal palaces and—I have to agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough—the way in which people have to travel for security reasons, but there must be an emphasis on ensuring that the taxpayer gets value for money. That is a way of strengthening support for the sovereign and the work that she and her family do on behalf of the nation. If we going to get this right, and the Bill is a good attempt at trying to do so, we must ensure that we not only get value for money but are very clear and honest to everybody about all moneys that are spent on supporting the sovereign in the work that she does.

Michael Ellis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevan Jones: I was about to conclude, but go on.

Michael Ellis: The hon. Gentleman refers to concern about value for money. Does he accept that the royal family bring in hundreds of millions of pounds to the state every year as juxtaposed with the few millions that it costs to run the royal family, most of which is spent on public buildings?

Kevan Jones: That is another debate and it is difficult to quantify what the hon. Gentleman says is brought in. I do not just look at this in terms of money, but take the more fundamental view that we have a Head of State and should support her in the work that she does on behalf of this nation. What I am saying is that we need to be clear about what that costs. We should be honest about how much it costs, even if it costs more than £34 million, and not hide the way in which moneys are spent.
	I broadly welcome the thrust of the Bill, but I hope that the NAO report looks not just at how royal expenditure is spent on the sovereign grant, but at other moneys that are paid to the royal household. It might suggest, for example, that the money that comes from the Ministry of Defence should not come out of defence expenditure.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The shadow Chancellor concluded his remarks by saying that he had looked up the Commons Journal for 1760. He is, of course, a very modern man. I went a little earlier and looked up the Commons Journal for 1575. I thank the Library for its assistance in helping me to find what I was looking for. I was looking for the behaviour of the House towards a Mr Peter Wentworth, a man who represented a Cornish seat and had the temerity to criticise the then sovereign, Elizabeth I. He said that
	“none is without fault, no, not our noble Queen”.
	For this “prepared speech” and
	“divers offensive matters touching Her Majesty”
	he was taken prisoner to the Tower and held there for a month at the insistence of the House of Commons. I must say that I think they knew how to behave in 1575, and it is a model for us today.
	I want to come on to who really owns the Crown Estate, because that is important in this discussion. That is why I intervened on the Chancellor, and I am grateful to him for taking my intervention. It is important to remember that the Crown Estate is the property of the sovereign in an ultimate sense, though gifted for a reign. The importance of that is that the sovereign therefore has a right to ask for money. One might think that they would get the money anyway, but sovereigns have been promised money by Parliament that has been stopped. One just needs to go back to Charles II, who handed over all his feudal dues to the Government for £100,000 a year in perpetuity for all his heirs and successors. I am not sure that that £100,000 has been paid once in the last three hundred and some odd years. The Crown, by virtue of owning the Crown Estate, can guarantee that it is entitled to a revenue. The fact that at the beginning of each reign it could theoretically demand the Crown Estate back is important reassurance and a reassertion of that right.

William Cash: Is my hon. Friend conscious of the fact that at the time of the secret treaty of Dover in 1670, the Crown would not recall Parliament because Louis XIV insisted that we should do what the French and the rest of the Europeans wanted, in return for which he would give enough money to Charles II to keep him in with his mistresses and the royal household in the manner to which he felt he should be accustomed?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I remember the secret treaty of Dover well, although I was not an active participant. However, it is not particularly relevant to this debate. It has to be borne in mind that Louis XIV did not deliver the cash, which is always a slight problem in such negotiations.
	The Crown Estate belongs to the sovereign. Any other great landowner who has inherited land owns that property outright and is free to pass it from generation to generation. The Crown Estate is in that position. We have discussed before whether, because it is exempt from death duties or because it used to be used to pay for Government expenditure, it is in some sense different and the nation’s. I would argue that that reasoning is not accurate. In the same way that the feudal duties that fell upon other landowners were abolished as time went on, so the Crown Estate would in all normal circumstances have become the Queen’s outright.
	I therefore go back to my point, which the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) dislikes, that the Queen pays an 85% tax rate. There would be £200 million or more in income for the Queen every year, but in fact there will be only about £30 million. So Her Majesty is the highest-paying taxpayer in this country. Members of Parliament might like to think that we could do a deal with the Government, hand over our salary and be given £9,000 a year back.

Ian Davidson: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a distinction between the monarch as an individual and the monarchy as an institution? The
	Crown Estate is the property of the state, inasmuch as it is the property of the monarchy as an institution, not the monarch as an individual. It is therefore untrue to say that the monarch as an individual is paying 85% tax.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I think it is immeasurably confusing when we start trying to divide the Queen up in that way. Her Majesty is our sovereign, full stop. She is one person, indivisible. She is not the trinity—Her Majesty the Queen, Her Majesty Mrs Windsor and Her Majesty the third party of the trinity. It does not work like that. She is one sovereign individual.
	The next point that I want to make is one on which I agree, as I often do, actually, with the right hon. Member for North Durham. [Hon. Members: “Honourable.”] I am so sorry, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). It is in Her Majesty’s gift, of course, to promote him, and perhaps she might have looked more favourably on that if he had been a bit more loyal in his comments. However, I agree with his point that we have to pay for the constitution that we have. The Queen is not here to bring in tourism and things like that. She is here as an essential part of our constitution. That is why it is worth the military taking on the costs of sending attachés and so on and so forth. The military owe their loyalty to the Crown, not to politicians, senior generals or people who could abuse that power to change how this country is run.
	Our constitutional settlement, which works extraordinarily well and has worked well for hundreds of years, is worth paying for. On that basis, we get stability as a nation and the effective operation of our constitutional system. The judges owe loyalty to the Crown; the military owe loyalty to the Crown; we, as Members of Parliament, swear an oath to the Crown. It is the Crown that is at the pinnacle of our constitution, outside and above politics and a defender of our liberties. Indeed, as Charles I said at the scaffold, he died the martyr of the people, because he had been defending the liberties of the people, as the Queen has done now for jolly nearly 60 years. We must be willing to pay the right price for our constitutional settlement, and I think that should be a generous price.

Michael Ellis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that each sovereign since 1760 has been asked by successive Governments to sign over the proceeds of the Crown Estate, in and of itself, proves that the estate belongs not to the country but to the person of the sovereign?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is of course right.
	It is often said that Her Majesty is the golden thread that binds our nation together, and the key part of that phrase is the word “golden”. Her Majesty is not the cotton thread, or the silver thread, or the woollen thread, she is a golden thread that binds the nation together as one unique, great and noble nation.

Paul Flynn: rose —

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is always an honour to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Paul Flynn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way before he goes into hyper-rant. Does he realise that the fantasy that he is describing has been
	changed by the fact that many hon. Members, who are forced to say an oath—they have no choice—put a preamble to that oath that alters its meaning? The process of a decision to go to war was changed when the House decided to vote on wars in 2003, and probably on all future wars.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: There is a completely separate question, outside the remit of this debate, on the prerogative powers. It has well been established that the prerogative can be bound by legislation, and legislation comes from this House. However, that has very little to do with the Crown Estate and the financing of our sovereign, which, as I said, is something that we should do properly.
	We then have the question of scrutiny and the Public Accounts Committee. I make no bones about it, I think it is inelegant, ungallant and improper to look at every biscuit that Her Majesty wishes to buy. I think Her Majesty should have as many biscuits as she likes, and if they are chocolate Bath Olivers rather than Rich Tea, so be it. I just do not think it right for a Committee of this House to look into that.
	There is a risk—my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) put this incredibly well, as he always does—of people using that for political advantage. That may have changed, because yesterday, sitting in this Chamber, we suddenly discovered that all politicians now loathe the press and think that they are not worth dealing with, so my previous concern that members of the Public Accounts Committee might use investigating the monarchy to get publicity is clearly no longer true, because they so dislike the press that even to appear on the front page of the newspapers would be such an embarrassment that they would eschew the opportunity. However, times may change again, and it is of serious concern to me that the Public Accounts Committee could spend time looking at the £35 million spent on the sovereign grant rather than at the £6 billion that was wasted by the Ministry of Defence. We really do not want to get into a situation in which the PAC concentrates on something that is de minimis in the broader scheme of things because that is more appealing in terms of publicity.
	Let me conclude—[ Interruption. ] Thank you. Let me conclude with the words of Her Majesty on her 21st birthday in South Africa:
	“I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.”
	Mr Evans, God save the Queen.

Nigel Evans: Follow that, Mr Davidson!

Ian Davidson: It is difficult to follow a speech like that because in many ways, it took the biscuit.

Chris Ruane: Bourbon!

Ian Davidson: Of course, as my hon. Friend says, that biscuit would be a Bourbon.
	It is worth while clarifying the question of the ownership of the Crown Estate. Is it owned by the monarch as an individual or the monarchy as an institution? When the
	Public Accounts Committee looked at this matter, there was a consistent attempt by officers of the monarchy to confuse and conflate the two. We need to ask ourselves this question: were the monarchy abolished, would Crown Estate moneys and properties belong to the deposed monarch as an individual or would they remain with the state? It is quite clear that they would remain with the state. Therefore, the moneys and the estates are not the property of the individual who happens to be the monarch at any particular time. That clarifies a number of things.

Mel Stride: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Davidson: No, I want to proceed because we are short of time.
	I am seeking clarification from the Chancellor, who, I remember, was on the Public Accounts Committee when he was a young whippersnapper—I have often wondered what happened to him since. Will the National Audit Office, the interventions of which I will welcome, also be able to look at all elements of royal involvement? In particular, can it look at the royal art collection, about which there were serious discussions and disputes in the past? That would seem to be covered by what he has said, but it is not immediately clear.
	Is the Crown Estate the right body to take into account when determining the monarch’s income? Those of us on the Public Accounts Committee who examined the Duchy of Cornwall’s accounts were absolutely clear that the Duke of Cornwall was manipulating the money involved, by playing a major role in determining the amounts of expenditure and income, thereby determining how much money came, or was available, to him as an individual.
	Quite clearly, the Crown Estate could be leant on by the monarchy to make decisions on expenditure and income in the short term to affect the amount of grant that the royal family receive. The grant would then be on, as it were, a golden ratchet—a bit like EU expenditure, it would always go up, and never down. There is clearly scope for abuse in those circumstances. Will the Chancellor clarify those points?
	Will the Chancellor also take into account the fact that there is due to be a windfall from wind and wave power? Will he assure the Committee that all of that will be taken into account when the review takes place in due course?

George Osborne: I shall deal briefly—because time is short—with the points raised. I should say first, however, that I am grateful to the Committee and the Opposition Front-Bench team for the general support they have given to clause 1 and indeed the whole Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) raised the key question: how do we create a mechanism that preserves the dignity of the monarchy while ensuring that the House is accountable for the expenditure of public money? As I said in my opening remarks, there is the question of whether the money provided is enough or too much. I said that we do not want a cut-price monarch or a lavish monarchy. As a general guide, I have looked at how much the monarchy
	has spent over the past five years. On average, £34 million of public money has been given per year through various forms of grant and money drawn from a reserve built up using public money. I have said that that is not a bad guide for the future and that 15% of Crown Estate revenue will provide that amount over the rest of the Parliament. In 2016, we will review whether that is the right amount.

William Cash: The Chancellor referred just now to something that I found difficult to accept. He distinguished between a cut-price monarchy and a lavish monarchy. Given Her Majesty’s incredibly distinguished performance over the past nearly 60 years, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) referred, does he appreciate that this is not about being lavish, but about effectiveness and dignity?

George Osborne: I agree that it is all about effectiveness and dignity, and I think that the Bill strikes the right balance between those who say that the monarchy is spending too much and those who say that it is not getting enough money for its official duties. The Bill has been discussed with the royal household, and it is content with it, which is why the whole process began with a Gracious message.
	I want to clear up a misunderstanding. There will be a real-terms increase in the annual sums that Parliament provides, but that is because the royal household has been relying on a reserve of public money that has built up over time. That reserve has come to an end, and as I said a couple of weeks ago, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, perfectly reasonably when confronted with this issue before the general election, said, “I think we’ll wait until after the general election and let whoever are the Government then deal with it.” We are here because we have been relying on a reserve of public money that has run out. However, with the mechanism we are putting in place there will be a real-terms reduction of up to 9%—on our estimates—in public support for the royal household.
	The shadow Chancellor and others, including the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), asked what would happen if there was a windfall from, for example, the offshore marine estate. At the moment, that constitutes a very small part of the revenues of the Crown Estate—about 1%, as I understand it. It is perfectly possible that, in the latter part of the decade or in the next decade, there will be a big increase, but, because I have accepted the spirit of the Opposition amendment, we will now have a review in 2016 and will be in a much better place to assess whether there will be such a windfall. However, I think that it is highly unlikely. No one is predicting a massive windfall in the next three or four years leading up to that review.
	The reserve provides a check. The expenditure of the royal household is audited by the National Audit Office and if the money is not being spent for purposes for which it is provided by Parliament, it will come out in the audit. If there is an excess—in other words, if the sovereign grant is more than it needs—it goes into a reserve. That is a long-established principle. There is now a check on that reserve so that it cannot rise above 50% or thereabouts of the money from the sovereign grant, which was not the case before the Bill was presented to the House. The trustees—the Prime Minister, the
	Chancellor and the Keeper of the Privy Purse—have to provide an annual report to the Treasury, and through the Treasury to Parliament, on that reserve.
	A couple of specific points were made about Marlborough house. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) raised this point a couple of times. Marlborough house will remain the Government’s responsibility and is currently used by the Commonwealth Secretariat, as I am sure he knows. It will be up to the royal household to decide what premises it needs. It would, for example, be able to rent premises if it needed to, but I do not think that that is relevant to the support that we are providing.
	The hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who is no longer in his place, asked about the mausoleum. It will stay on the English Heritage buildings at risk register until it is repaired in five to eight years’ time. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough asked about the governance of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. I did not think it appropriate to open up that issue in this legislation, which is more narrowly focused on the official support that Parliament provides to Her Majesty.
	I hope that I have now answered all the questions that have been raised, and that clause 1 can now proceed to stand part of the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Accounts of the Royal Household

John McDonnell: I rise to speak to amendment 1, page 2, line 31, at end add—
	“(4A) The statement must be accompanied by information showing the numbers of directly or indirectly employed hourly-paid staff of the Royal Household working in or in connection with the Royal Palaces in London who in the financial year in question were paid at or below £8.30 an hour.”.
	I shall be as brief as possible, given the time constraints. The amendment is straightforward. Clause 2 proposes that the royal household’s accounts are to be reported. I am asking that a statement be included in that report to show the number of employees who are directly or indirectly employed by the royal household and who are being paid at or below £8.30 an hour. The reason that I have arrived at the figure of £8.30 is that that is the London living wage, as set by the Mayor of London, who has described it as the wage level designed to provide a
	“minimum acceptable quality of life”
	for people working in the capital.
	The London living wage was started by a group of religious organisations, churches and trade unions 10 years ago, as part of a campaign by London Citizens. They came together to try to tackle poverty, and recognised that the national minimum wage did not allow people to avoid living in poverty in the capital city. They have campaigned over the past decade to press employers to pay the London living wage. They have targeted cleaners, in particular, who are living in poverty. They campaigned and they won. First, they won in a number of banks at Canary Wharf, then they came to Parliament and ensured that we paid our cleaners the London living wage. The campaign continued right through the capital, and more
	than 200 major companies have now signed up to the London living wage campaign. The Prime Minister himself described it as
	“an idea whose time had come”.
	The Leader of the Opposition appeared with him on a platform before the general election with members of London Citizens to sign up to the London living wage. Every mayoral candidate has supported it. Why? Because all of us want to see people living out of poverty. Yet in the royal household, which is only a mile and a half away from here, the workers who are employed by contracting companies including KGB—

Chris Ruane: The Russians!

John McDonnell: It is an unfortunate name, but there we are.
	People working in the royal household for companies such as KGB and GreenZone are being paid £6.45 an hour, maximum. We have discovered that many of them are organised by the Public and Commercial Services Union, which is not recognised by the companies. Many of those people do not even have written contracts, which is an illegal practice. The number of jobs there has just been cut, and the work load has increased. Some people have had their hours increased, but they are still living on poverty wages.
	The amendment would simply ask the royal household to publish the information on how many people working for the royal family, cleaning their rooms and corridors and serving them in different ways, are being paid below the London minimum wage. In this way, I want to recruit the royal household to support the London Citizens campaign. I want it to lead the campaign. As the Mayor of London himself has said, no company in London should be paying less than the London living wage. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and, I believe, the Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor have signed up to the campaign in the past. The amendment simply seeks to tackle poverty wages in London. On that basis, I hope that we can expect the unanimous support of the House.

Nigel Evans: The Question is proposed that the amendment be made.

Hon. Members: No.

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr Evans. I do not wish to move the amendment at this stage. Having made my statement, I do not wish to delay the Committee, as there are more important amendments to consider.
	Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the  Bill .
	Clauses 3 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7
	 — 
	Review by Royal Trustees of Sovereign Grant

Manuscript a mendment  proposed: A, page 6, line 7, leave out ‘7’ and insert ‘4’.—(M r  George Osborne.)

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 6, page 6, line 7, leave out ‘7 years’ and insert ‘3 years’.
	Government manuscript amendment B.
	Amendment 7, page 6, line 8, leave out ‘7 years’ and insert ‘5 years’.
	Amendment 8,page6,line8,at end add—
	‘(6) The Trustees shall also review the percentage for the time being specified in Step 1 of section 6(1) as soon as practicable if, over the financial year immediately preceding the base year, the income account net surplus of the Crown Estate increased by more than the trend rate of GDP growth.
	(7) In subsection (6), “the trend rate of GDP growth” means the estimate of the trend rate of GDP growth most recently published by the Office for Budget Responsibility which is applicable to that year.
	(8) Subsections (2) to (4) shall also apply to a review carried out under subsection (6).’.

Kerry McCarthy: I wish to speak briefly to amendment 8. This would introduce a check on potential future rises in income from the Crown Estate. At a time when Departments and the public generally are having to take very difficult decisions to make their limited budgets cover the essentials, we should at least apply careful analysis to what sort of income the 15% figure would bring in for the royal household over future years. I would appreciate any information Ministers have on forecasts for the sovereign grant over the coming years, particularly regarding this spending review period.
	We are very short of time, but I shall press on with the issue of meeting the royal household’s needs. When I met the Economic Secretary yesterday—I was pleased to have the opportunity to discuss these issues with her and the Bill team—we had a discussion about the fact that the civil list has not adequately reflected the needs of the royal family in the past. At one point, it was being paid too much money and amassed significant reserves; then, it was not paid enough to meet its needs and had to draw down on the reserves. I appreciate that the current formula may not be appropriate, but a formula fixed to income on the basis of something like the Crown Estate is not necessarily any more likely to meet royal spending needs.
	In 2010-11, the Crown Estate profits were £230.9 million. If the new mechanism were already in use, that would mean a grant in two years’ time of £34.7 million. Instead, the 2012-13 grant has been set at £31 million in recognition that 15% would not be appropriate or proportionate. This is why we are asking the Government to consider a more flexible mechanism in future.
	When the Chancellor spoke in the preliminary debate the other week, he said that the grant to the royal family should reflect generally how well the economy is doing. The particular concern we have—it has been touched on already—is that the Crown Estate includes investment in offshore wind, particularly the new wind-power projects that are coming on board. I think the chief executive of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association said that the carbon capture and storage industry is likely to be very big in the future, probably measured in trillions of dollars. We think that could have an impact on the accounts, too.
	We were grateful for the Chancellor’s assurances during the debate on the funding resolution that we will not allow revenues from offshore wind to lead to a disproportionate rise in revenues for the royal household. I would be grateful for any further information about what safeguards could be put in place.
	Amendment 8 would help. It would limit disproportionate increases to the royal household. I welcome the fact that the Government have tabled manuscript amendments in response to our amendments which would provide an earlier review period. As the Bill was originally drafted, the first review of the new arrangement would not have taken place for seven years and there would then have been a review every seven years after that. We thought that the first review should take place within three years and that subsequent reviews should take place every five years. We have listened to what the Government had to say about three years being unfortunate in that it would coincide with the next general election. We are happy to accept the Government manuscript amendments that the first review should be four years and subsequent reviews every five years. We do think, however, that there should be another mechanism to address the fact that no cap is in force. There is a cap on the reserves, but there is no cap on the potential increases that the 15% figure, linked to the income of the Crown Estate, could generate.
	I shall skim over much of what else I was going to say, but we think it important to have some upward cap. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister or the Chancellor have to say in response.

George Osborne: As was acknowledged by the shadow Chancellor, we have taken on board what I consider to be the most significant amendments in tabling our own manuscript amendments. There will now be a review in 2016, and there will be a review every five years after that. If the House accepts our amendments we shall be able to prevent some windfall from offshore renewable energy from not being taken into account before it comes about. We will have a chance to do that in 2016, and that is partly because we have accepted the Opposition’s amendments.
	I have already dealt to some extent with the point raised by the shadow Chancellor, and by amendment 8, about whether some other mechanism is needed. A fair number of checks are already in place. If the grant turns out to be more than the royal household needs—and the assessment of need will be checked by the National Audit Office—it will go into a reserve. If the reserve hits 50% of the grant, the trustees will step in and reduce the amount of money coming in. They will turn down the taps. That is a sensible mechanism, and it means that we will not be having an annual debate in the House about royal finances, entertaining though the last few hours have been.
	The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) specifically asked why the figure for 2012-13 was £31 million. In a sense, that question lies at the heart of the issue. I accept that this is a complicated concept. The royal family have been relying on grants from Parliament—either the civil list or the royal travel or royal palaces grant—and supplementing them with a reserve which has been built up, with the use of public money, in the last decade or two. In 2012-13 the royal family will get the £31 million, but they will also expect to draw on the last of the reserve that was built up in the 1990s and 2000s. They will, in effect, receive more than £1 million from public money—money raised through taxation—because they will be using the last of that reserve.

Edward Balls: When I said that there would be a 3.2% real-terms rise from next year until the end of the Parliament, I did not mean a rise in the grant; I meant a rise in total
	expenditure. Total expenditure in 2012-13 will be £33 million and will rise to £35.5 million, which, in 2010-11 prices, is a rise from £31.3 million to £31.9 million. Although the Chancellor has made an important historic point about the reserves, the 3.2% real-terms is not driven by the reserves: it is merely an overall rise in total expenditure. I do not think that the Chancellor was entirely right on that point.

George Osborne: The point I was making was that, although there are lumpy movements in individual years—in 2010-11, for various reasons, some capital works were delayed and will be undertaken next year—the average of £34 million, which was £37 million two years ago, amounts in effect to a cash freeze and a real-terms reduction.

Edward Balls: Over the Parliament.

George Osborne: Over the Parliament. But the point is that it strikes the right balance between too much and too little.
	I think that the checks are adequate, and for that reason, although I have accepted a couple of the Opposition’s amendments, I do not wish to accept amendment 8.
	Manuscript amendment  A  agreed to.
	Manuscript amendment made: B, page 6, line 8, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	‘(b) every period of 5 years beginning at the end of another review period.’—(Mr George Osborne.)
	Amendment proposed: 8,page6,line8,at end add—
	‘(6) The Trustees shall also review the percentage for the time being specified in Step 1 of section 6(1) as soon as practicable if, over the financial year immediately preceding the base year, the income account net surplus of the Crown Estate increased by more than the trend rate of GDP growth.
	(7) In subsection (6), “the trend rate of GDP growth” means the estimate of the trend rate of GDP growth most recently published by the Office for Budget Responsibility which is applicable to that year.
	(8) Subsections (2) to (4) shall also apply to a review carried out under subsection (6).’.—(Ed Balls.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 148, Noes 241.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Proceedings interrupted (Order, this day).
	The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, this day).
	Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 8 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
	The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	Bill, as amended, reported.
	Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.
	Third  Reading

George Osborne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I shall be brief. I want to thank the House for the two days of debate and for the scrutiny and entertainment that has been provided. We have discussed chocolate biscuits, Tupperware, secret treaties and what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) said in 1971, the year in which I was born. I particularly want to thank various participants, such as the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), the hon. Member for Glasgow South
	West (Mr Davidson), who is not in his place, and my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). They all showed a passionate interest in this subject and knew what they were talking about. They argued from different points of view but helped to enlighten the debate.
	Of course, it is not just Ministers and the Chancellor who do the work on such legislation. An official team at the Treasury have been working on it for more than a year and I want to thank them for their hard work. I thank the royal household for its engagement as well as Alan Reid, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, with whom I have been liaising throughout. We have got the balance right between providing the funds to allow the monarch and her family to do their official duties with dignity and the kind of support we would expect for our Head of State while at the same time providing checks and balances on how that money is spent and allowing Parliament to scrutinise those resources for the first time. I suspect that such scrutiny would have been unthinkable decades ago.
	Many people have referred to the fact that in 1760 the arrangement was put in place whereby the revenues from the Crown Estate were handed over for the lifetime of the monarch in return for a parliamentary grant. I do not know whether the arrangements in the Bill will last for 250 years—that is probably a bit ambitious—but I hope they last for many years and decades to come. That might mean that the House will miss the entertaining debates we have had over two days, but it will also ensure that our monarchy is properly funded, that it is above the annual political fray and that it can get on with doing what it does so well: representing our country and being our Head of State.

Edward Balls: I echo the Chancellor’s thanks to Members on both sides of the House for the way in which they have participated in the debate. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends for the way in which they have helped us play the Opposition’s proper role in scrutinising such legislation. There have been many historical references and when we look back to the last serious debate in Parliament, in 1971, we can see that the tone of those debates was very different from that of our debates today and a fortnight ago. That shows that there have been many changes since the early 1970s, including more pressure on and exposure for the monarchy, as well as an unprecedented degree of international exposure. The consensus on the role of the monarchy in our constitution and in our country is stronger now than it was during the previous debate, which has been shown by the speeches from both sides of the House as we have scrutinised the Bill. I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for being willing to brief us and to be involved in serious discussions that have led to changes in the legislation. The manuscript amendments that he was willing to table following our suggested amendments were welcome.
	The change will lead to an unprecedented increase in the scrutiny of the royal household by the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and Parliament. As the Chancellor has said, that is a good thing in building further trust and support for the monarchy in our country. Obviously, I regret the fact that we did not manage to get agreement on our trigger
	mechanism if revenues from the Crown Estate rise rapidly in coming years, but there are measures, checks and balances in the legislation to make sure that we can properly do our job as parliamentarians in ensuring that money is well spent but also that the monarchy is properly financed.
	Let me conclude by saying it is of great regret that the—oh, he is still here. For a second, I feared that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) had left and I wanted to thank him for his contributions to the debates. It is an open question whether the financial settlement for the Crown Estate that the Chancellor generously set out will make affordable the finest horses and the gold-gilt carriages that the hon. Gentleman called for in the debate a fortnight ago as befitting Her Majesty. However, I assure him that it will certainly be enough to pay for Bath Oliver biscuits with chocolate on the outside; there is no doubt about that. His contributions have been welcome. As I said, this has been an important debate about history as well as the future and it is good to have present an hon. Member who has a great grasp of that history. Indeed, some of us sometimes think he might have been there in 1760—more in style than in substance. We thank him and all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. The job of scrutinising these matters now starts for Parliament and I thank the Chancellor for helping us to ensure that that will be done properly in the years to come.

Tristram Hunt: In Committee, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) said that the monarchy was a fragile institution, but I beg to differ. The monarchy has shown itself to be a very powerful and strong institution, lasting over the centuries. If the British state was beginning again, we probably would not start by creating a monarchy: it is irrational, inequitable, inherently sexist, myopic and averse to many of the principles of progressive politics and the social democratic future that we on the left hold dear. However, we are where we are and there is no enthusiasm for dismantling the monarchy.

Ian Davidson: Yes, there is.

Tristram Hunt: Among the public as a whole.
	We in opposition should be brave and confident enough to think about some of the monarchy’s strengths, which is partly what the Bill is about ensuring. First, the monarchy gives a broader notion of citizenship. We on the left often get in a lather about being subjects rather than citizens and whether that holds back our politics, but the virtue of the monarchy is that it creates a notion of citizenship that is not necessarily linked to ethnicity. It is not a blood-and-soil notion of citizenship. The political scientist John Gray put it rather well when he wrote:
	“The monarchical constitution we have today—a mix of antique survivals and postmodern soap opera—may be absurd, but it enables a diverse society to rub along without too much friction.”
	It also points to a wonderful thing about Britain—that we have no purpose in the world, unlike the great republics of France, America or Italy, where there is an endpoint, or telos, to do with happiness or improving equality. Britain has no ultimate endpoint and monarchy is part of that.

Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend has demonstrated that he has a far superior knowledge of history than perhaps any other Member of the House who was not actually there during large sections of it. Does he agree that the histories of the United States and France are histories of violent revolution, whereas we have had a period of stable evolution, apart from a dark period in the 1650s and so on, largely because we have had a constitutional monarchy?

Tristram Hunt: I take my hon. Friend’s point, but we should not over-emphasise our Whiggish stability over the years. We often used to think of the 18th century as the age of equipoise and stability. In fact, underneath that monarchy, all sorts of revolutionary fervour was going on. The campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) to have the Chartists properly recognised in the House hints at a slightly different history. It is a source of great sadness to many people that, although the House was rebuilt in the 1830s and ’40s, it took until mid-1890s for the statue of Cromwell to appear outside.
	For all its narrow, Eurocentric and white family structure, the royal family also has a curious internationalist sensibility, for to understand the British royal family in the 19th and 20th centuries is to understand empire and the nature of Britain in the world. As we have heard today in respect of reforming the Act of Settlement, the monarch was also monarch of imperial nations across the world, then the British Commonwealth and then the Commonwealth. That points to the unique nature of Britain: its openness and sense of citizenship, which is, again, above and beyond blood and soil. Part of the strength of monarchy is that it speaks to the multicultural, multi-faith age in which we live. There is a curious modernity about the nature of monarchy, which, again, keeps its strength going.
	The real virtue of the royal family today is the soft power embodied within it. We have heard, quite rightly, detailed discussions about £35 million or £37 million costs this afternoon, but the royal family as a brand vehicle for Britishness is worth huge sums more than £35 million or £37 million. The sums regained from the world’s media focus on London during the royal wedding recently were far in excess of its cost. Although our beloved former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, used to describe Britain as a young country, it is, in fact, a very old country.

Oliver Heald: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but does he agree that that is the reason why we do not need a new, written constitution? We have gradually evolved as a country. Other countries look at us and at Parliament—the mother of all Parliaments—because we have been through a great, long history. We have managed to achieve something. We stand for things in the world. We stand for democracy, freedom of speech, common law and the rule of law, whereby this country has made the sort of decisions that it has over the past few days.

Tristram Hunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he knows far better than I do that, of course, in the quote about the mother of Parliaments, John Bright was referring to the whole country, rather than to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman points to the
	dangers of a written constitution, although my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) would vehemently disagree and do so in quite some detail if pressed.
	Part of our strength as an old country is connected to the royal family and monarchy, which has taken different forms over the years. We have in this country a natural resource in history. As other nations have oil and diamonds, we have the past, and we need to use it as a source of leverage in the world.
	In addition to soft power, the royal family also brings hard currency. I am privileged to represent Stoke-on-Trent, where the Chancellor will soon visit many successful businesses in the area. Many ceramics companies in my constituency have enjoyed record profits on the back of the royal wedding. The profits of Bridgewater, Portmeirion and Hudson and Middleton show that the ceramics industry is booming on the back of the royal wedding.
	According to VisitBritain spokesman, Paul Eastham,
	“Our culture and heritage reputation is very strong around the world. At the heart of that lies monarchy.”
	Many historians and I would disagree that the nature of Britain is innately bound up with monarchy, but we should not kid ourselves about the fact that, as the success of the visit of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to Canada and California has shown, it brings remarkable attention to Britain. I was involved in constituency business in Australia at the time of the royal visit to Canada and California, but the media attention focused on that young couple—and another great global icon, Ms Kate Moss—from right around the world was remarkable.
	There is a job to be done, and many members of the royal family do it very well. We come to the tricky question of financing it. I share my Front Benchers’ concerns about making sure that we have a proper vehicle to ensure that excessive profits and marked changes in the amount of money flowing to the royal family are properly looked after. I, too, still have questions about the shared ownership of assets when it comes to the royal family. I also share concerns about security costs. We in Stoke-on-Trent were greatly privileged to have a visit by the Earl of Wessex recently, but I have to say that I thought that the security costs and the entourage involved were not wholly necessary.
	On timetabling, the move from seven to five years is quite right. When we return to government in the imminent future and return, hopefully, to four-year Parliaments, that period can go down to four years from five years, to reflect the length of a Parliament.
	The Chancellor has come up with the least worst option for financing the royal family. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough suggested, the royal palaces are in real danger of decay. Many of them have not had the infrastructure investment that they demand, and demands on their fabric will grow. As part of the quid pro quo of the settlement, we need from the royal family further opening-up of some of the royal palaces, and we need to think more creatively about the art collection held by Her Majesty. We need to continue bearing down on costs, and we need the kind of public accountability and audit that the Bill brings to bear.
	The Chancellor and shadow Chancellor spoke of the language of utility and satisfaction, in terms of the relationship between Parliament and monarchy, and this settlement sets us on that road.

Michael Ellis: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), who is clearly a royalist, and who is a founding member of the all-party parliamentary group on the Queen’s diamond jubilee, and I congratulate him on that.
	It is easy to try to put a price on monarchy, as I think the hon. Gentleman was saying. Of course, to a certain extent, one has to do that especially in such a debate as this, but the monarchy, personified so ably by our sovereign, is not bounded by monetary value; it is about honour, nobility of conduct, its historical nature, and an institution of which we can all be proud. If we look in some detail at the mischief that the Bill is trying to redress, the finances of the royal household, designed to support Her Majesty, are currently overly complex. There are no fewer than four grants, which are themselves hidebound and bureaucratic. They have a tendency to be inflexible in that if there is a depletion of one grant, there cannot be a transfer from the other grants to fill the gap. Consequently, the system clearly does not work. That, in and of itself, irrespective of one’s ideological views about monarchy as an institution, needs to be redressed.
	However, it goes deeper than that, because the sums of money we are talking about—approximately £35 million—are, in governmental terms, de minimis. They are miniscule. I dare say that this area of expenditure is more scrutinised, deeply analysed and debated in various forums, including this House, than other areas of the public finances, where hundred of millions, or even billions, of pounds are spent, so there is no shortage of scrutiny whatsoever. It is clear that for the first time since the early 1970s Parliament is looking at a proper modernisation of the finances of the royal household and the monarchy.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman refers to the level of scrutiny that the household finances receive, but this debate will last less than three hours. Does he not think that that is a flaw?

Michael Ellis: I think one can tell from the number of Members in the Chamber that the matter has been debated perfectly clearly.
	The Crown Estate is the property of the sovereign and is in the right of the Crown. In the generations since George III’s accession in 1760, successive Governments have gone to the sovereign of the day and asked, “May we have the proceeds from the Crown Estate?” All sovereigns since, including George IV, William VI and so on, have signed away those rights. However, from a legal perspective, the fact that the application has been made and the request granted on each occasion perhaps indicates how the law would look at the matter. It seems clear to me that the revenue is surrendered to the Exchequer and that the legal implication of that act of surrender is that the revenue belongs to the Crown.
	The sovereign grant is normally set as equal to 15% of the profit from the Crown Estate, as has already been alluded to. It could be argued that that is sufficient, but it is not over-generous, and no one could reasonably argue that it is disproportionate to the affairs of the Crown. If one takes the care to look at where Crown expenditure actually goes, one will see that much of it
	goes back to general public usage. For example, most of the communications allowance is spent on writing paper, stationary and clerical costs for responding to items of correspondence received by the royal household. With regard to entertainment costs, tens of thousands of British subjects receive hospitality at garden parties, for example, so costs are incurred in that way.
	The royal palaces account for a huge part of royal expenditure. If we did not have a royal family, it is reasonably safe to assume that we would retain the palaces—one would hope that they would not be knocked down to build car parks—and consequently there would be museums that would need to be maintained, although no doubt few people would visit them. The roofs would still need to be fixed and leaks repaired, so the Exchequer would not save. When one takes the care to look at the expenditure, one will see that it is extremely modest and, as has been alluded to, extremely impressive savings have been made over the past couple of years.
	The current system is inflexible, overly bureaucratic and has not been as transparent as it could have been. One cannot rationalise romance, and I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and others that the institution of the monarchy is about more than just money, but one must bear in mind that although the monarchy is an emotionally unifying institution and, in my view, crucial to the success of this state, it is also susceptible to proper analysis of its finances, which is what the Bill will do. Consequently, I give it my full support.

Jonathan Edwards: I have a series of concerns with the Bill. First, it creates an artificial link between the profits from an estate given up by the royal family in 1760 and an amount required to carry their official duties in the present day. My major concern is with the escalator process that is put in place, whereby the amount that is received each year will be the same as or greater than that of the previous financial year, either through the floor introduced in the Bill or because 15% of the Crown Estate’s profits is greater than the floor. I am disappointed that the Opposition amendment on that was defeated in Committee.
	There are curious oddities in the Bill. Why is there a need to round up the Crown Estate’s profit to the nearest £100,000? Why round it upwards and not downwards? Why round it up at all? The profit of the Crown Estate is a red herring. There is no link between the successful organisation of the estate’s affairs and the amount received by the royal family. This is not a business arrangement. I recognise that there are arguments that the royal family should receive a lump sum and be able to transfer funds for better use. I also recognise the argument that the money provided is given for a specific purpose. However, if it is not being used for that purpose, on what grounds is that amount of funding being given?
	As many Members have said, there should be a regular needs-based analysis of the royal family’s expenditure, with grants provided accordingly. Having said that, I like the idea of a reserve fund for money that is not used. This sounds like the end-of-year flexibility that the Welsh Government set up under Plaid Cymru a few years ago, only for the Treasury to steal back
	£400 million earlier in the year. I look forward to the day when the Treasury follows the same pursuit in taking back money allocated to the royal family.
	The Crown Estate, which is a key part of the Bill, is owned by the state and administrated by commissioners. It owns large areas of land in Wales and claims the seabed and foreshore as part of its urban, rural and maritime portfolios. Yet last week’s annual report fails to provide a nation-by-nation or regional breakdown of the investments and profits of the Crown Estate. Figures for Scotland are provided on the website, but apparently no comparable figures for Wales are published. In the interests of transparency, we would like to see those figures published. In the interests of Wales, we would like to see responsibility for the Crown Estate in Wales transferred to the Welsh Government. This is our land and our seabed, and it should be used for investments that benefit the people of Wales.

Mel Stride: I feel that I must return to the status of the Crown Estate. Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that it is effectively owned by the institution of the monarchy and not by the state at all?

Jonathan Edwards: I do not agree. My belief is that the Crown Estate in Wales should now be devolved to the Welsh Government.
	Profits are coming from the use and exploitation of these assets. Those profits, be they for renewable energy on land or sea, should be given to the people of Wales. Having control of the Crown Estate land and sea in Wales would give us the opportunity to be a world leader in renewable energy and to develop our economy accordingly. In the meantime, the Bill should not include reference to the Crown Estate and should instead provide a series of grants according to the needs of the royal family to undertake their duties. If we are to have one single sovereign grant that is not needs-based, then why not simply increase it by the consumer prices index, as that seems to be the Government’s preferred measure of inflation?

Paul Flynn: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). I agree with every single word of his speech.
	These are delightful occasions. I am sorry that the hon. Member for the middle ages and North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has left us, because he gave us another cameo performance today, although he did not give the same peroration. He would have been very much at home in the court of King Canute.
	A couple of days ago, the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) rather optimistically sent me a letter—addressed to me by my first name, although I do not really know him in any way—requesting a contribution for the new stained glass window. I am afraid that I had to send him a rather disappointing reply. He did persuade me to put down an early-day motion drawing attention to the fact that we are already fairly well supplied with statues, pictures and paintings of royalty in this place, but very badly off in those
	things for a range of people, such as the Tolpuddle martyrs, the Chartists and the suffragettes, who have contributed hugely to the strength of our democracy and transformed this country into the proud modern democracy that it is now.
	Whenever royalty is discussed, the House becomes infantilised. It is worth mentioning again that because of our own decisions, which go back seven centuries, we are not allowed to criticise not only the monarch, but any member of her family. When an attempt was made to have a debate on the conduct of Prince Andrew on two occasions, I and other Members were gagged in saying anything about him that was not emetic, sycophantic drivel. We must understand that in this debate and many others, we are denied the opportunity as a free Parliament to discuss the personalities and behaviour of the entire royal family—not that I want to be critical tonight.
	I tried to make a point in the earlier debate about the special need for the role of the Head of State. The point of the story that I told about Mrs Thatcher is that we need someone who is above politics to act when a Prime Minister gets out of control. There was a possibility in 1990 that Margaret Thatcher could have caused a general election and that Parliament, the Cabinet and the Conservative party would not have been able to stop her. However, the Queen could have stopped her and almost certainly would have done so given the Queen’s personality and status. It is questionable whether other Prime Ministers would have had that strength of character and whether possible other monarchs would have had that strength of character. I am thinking of the Queen’s uncle and the Queen’s successor, who suffers from an incontinence of interference in matters that are way outside what a monarch should be involved in.

Thomas Docherty: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you remind me whether it is appropriate for an hon. Member to make remarks that appear to be disparaging about a member of the royal household?

Nigel Evans: I have already had to remind Mr Flynn that when he is referring to the royal family, he should do so with dignity, as their status in this country behoves. I hope that he will refrain from disparaging remarks in the future.

Paul Flynn: That is a splendid illustration of the fact that we are infantilised and incapable of the freedom of expression that I would have if I was writing a blog, speaking on the radio or writing in a newspaper. This House and our role is diminished because of that. As an elected representative who has long been regarded by my constituents as a republican, I am denied the opportunity of speaking the truth as I see it.

Tristram Hunt: On my hon. Friend’s substantive point, does he not think that the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill will withdraw the capacity for such royal interference in elections?

Paul Flynn: I think that many advances have been very beneficial. One of the most important was the decision we took in 2003 to vote on whether we go to war. Some 230 Members voted against. Unlike my hon. Friend, I do not agree with many of the attributes that
	give us our national status in the world of being “wider still and wider”. Many people praise us for that because it means that we can punch above our weight. It also means that our soldiers have to die beyond our responsibilities. We have taken on an unreasonable share of the dying in Afghanistan and Iraq because of the elevated view we have of our status, which is a damaging view.

Nigel Evans: Order. We are going far wide of what we are here to speak on, which is the Third Reading of the Bill. Other Members wish to speak, so keep to the Bill, Mr Flynn.

Paul Flynn: The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) made a point about the Bill and about whether those at Buckingham palace listen to our debates. I assure him that they do. The last time I spoke on these issues, I had a call from Buckingham palace within an hour telling me that the information I had given about the heir to the throne’s income increasing by 50% in a year and his spending of taxpayers’ money increasing by 18% was absolutely accurate but could be misleading. So we are under that surveillance, I am happy to say.
	I believe it is a complete myth to think that the Crown Estate is the property of the royal family, and it is a disingenuous view. In the Bill there is an attempt to refresh and replace that idea. I saw an interesting quote in the Financial Times from a Government source, who said:
	“There is a major constitutional issue with appearing to say that”
	the Queen
	“owns all this stuff when she doesn’t”.
	It is quite clear that the Crown Estate is the property of the country, and that the revenue should go to health, social security and the other issues before us.
	I cannot understand why Members, particularly our own Front Benchers, having seen that the Bill was coming up—we have one every 250 years—are maximising the understandable current popularity of the royal family to ensure that it gets through and that there is a settlement that could be very expensive in future. If the Bill had been presented to the House at the time of Diana’s death, or another time when the royal family were very unpopular, the House would have given a very different view. Clearly this is a honeymoon time in which to introduce it.
	I believe that, as has been suggested, a simple mechanism should have been adopted. As is the case for other taxpayers, such as recipients of income support and housing benefit, there could be a mechanism linked to inflation. I suggest again that it should be the same mechanism that decides on pensioners’ increases, which have sadly been reduced because of the change from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. If that measure were introduced and the funding were divorced from the Crown Estate, it would work and it would seem fair. Would it not be marvellous if we demanded from the royal family the same freedom of information that is demanded of all the rest of us?

Stephen Williams: I will be brief because I think a couple of other Members want to speak. As the Chancellor said earlier, today we are
	essentially altering arrangements that were first made at the time of the accession of George III in 1760. The most famous Member of Parliament for the old city of Bristol seat was Edmund Burke, and he coined the term “the fourth estate”—our dear friends, and indeed some enemies, in the press. Of course, they have had the wind of change blowing through them over the past hours and weeks. The second and third estates, of course, are ourselves in the Lords and Commons, and we have also experienced change, with more change to come. The first estate is the Crown itself, which is now receiving change. It is right that it should do so.
	In particular, it is right that the Crown should be more open and transparent about its finances. I was delighted that the Chancellor confirmed that Buckingham palace itself would be open on more days of the year so that members of the public can see inside, whether they are going to garden parties or are paying visitors, who currently go in August. If they see the finest horses and the finest coaches, they can also see probably the finest art collection on the planet.
	I agree with the sentiment expressed by several of my hon. Friends that we do not want to see a bicycling monarchy, but we do need a monarchy that is accessible and transparent to the public. That would also make it more enduring.

Dennis Skinner: First, I want to apologise for not being here in the earlier part of the day. I was at the hospital all day having some nuclear medicine, they called it. It is a new-fangled thing, and I would warn anybody, if you have got a chance to avoid it, avoid it. They stick a drug in you, and you feel like you are dying. What they are trying to do is put your heart under so much pressure that they can see whether you can stand the anaesthetic for a hip replacement in the near future. That is where I have been, and I missed all these wonderful contributions on the Queen’s new allowance—her winter heating allowance, or whatever it is.
	I remember well, way back in 1971, being joined by a lot of people in the House who were on the left wing at the time in voting against the Queen’s money. Quite a number of them are now in the House of Lords—[ Laughter. ] [Hon. Members: “Name them!] I can’t name all of them because I ain’t got time. They are all there. I remember that occasion very well because they were dining and wining on the fact that they had just voted against the Queen’s money, or the royal money.
	I am here today—I just managed to get back in time for Third Reading. My view about the monarchy has been pretty much the same all my life. I remember in the pit village of Clay Cross, when I was a bit of kid during the second world war—or maybe just a bit before—kids on the street saying that the royal family had blue blood, but I just could not buy that. My inquiring mind prevented me from being like the rest of the lads on the street.
	There is no doubt about it: the royal family were very popular in those days, notwithstanding King George VI not being able to speak properly on the radio. I heard all that, but notwithstanding, they were popular then, but there have been phases since when their popularity has waned, especially when Murdoch was the toast of the
	town—which he now ain’t. We have been slagging off Murdoch all week and telling him to sling his hook back to America and all the rest of it, but his papers had an influence. I am sure that there were times when Murdoch newspapers made a reasonable contribution to the talk about the dysfunctional royal family and all the rest of it, but I also believe that Charles himself made a contribution, because quite frankly, he is not liked. Those hon. Members who are royalists know in their hearts that they do not really want to see him be the king. When I take people from the women’s institute round the House of Commons and the House of Lords and show them the throne, they say, “Who sits in that other seat? I say, “Well, perhaps it’s Charles, but eventually, he’s gonna sit in the big seat.” They say, “Who will be in the other one?” and I say, “Camilla,” and they say, “No! We don’t want her!”

Nigel Evans: Order. I am speaking now from this big seat. It would be very good, firstly, if the hon. Gentleman could at least refer to the royal family in a dignified manner, as has happened almost throughout the debate, and secondly, if we could get back to Third Reading. I know that for unavoidable reasons, the hon. Gentleman was unable to be here earlier, but I am sure he knows what the Bill says. Could he get back to it?

Dennis Skinner: I know that the Bill is all about £35 million in the time of a recession. The truth is that people out there, notwithstanding what anybody else tells them and irrespective of this debate, will be saying, “Here we are. We’ve got a pay freeze, inflation’s going through the roof and energy prices are going up. Because of welfare reform, they’re cutting disability allowance. Three thousand blind and disabled people have marched through London for their money, and yet, on one given day, they are able to find the money for the royal family.”
	So, to go back chronologically to my story about the royal family, I was a bit of a kid, but then I got elected to Clay Cross council. I do not know what happened, but when I became chairman of the council, I got a big package, which turned out to be an invite to the royal garden party. I looked at it, and found they had included a little diagonal cross to put in the car—of course, I hadn’t a car, a bank account or a telephone. I said to a mate of mine, “You’d never believe the bumf that they’ve sent—all these different things for the royal garden party.” He said, “What did you do with it?” and I said, “I chucked it in t’dustbin.” I said, “There were even a thing to put in your car.” He says, “What colour were it?”—[ Interruption. ] No! He was asking what colour the pass was, not the car. He had seen one before, because he had been to the races to Cheltenham and Ascot and seen it. He says, “Get that pass!” I said, “Well, it’s in the dustbin,” and he says, “We’ve not emptied Wheatcroft close yet.” So I got the pass out. I saw him after he had retired, and I said, “Ay up, Joe, did you ever use that pass?” “Use it?” he says, “It’s here in t’glove compartment. I’ve used it every year. I go straight into Royal Ascot, not just the royal enclosure.”

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I let the hon. Gentleman finish the story because I wanted to hear the end, but it still has nothing to do with the Bill. May we please get back to the Bill?

Dennis Skinner: I am trying to explain that there are people out there who do not give a hoot about the royal family. The truth is that my old mate Joe, who has now passed on, wanted the pass, and that is how he felt about it. He wanted to be in the royal enclosure, unlike me. Obviously I did not go to the garden party—I have never been to one, although they tell me that Willie Hamilton did. I don’t know about that. I’ll tell you one thing though. Despite all the security, they are still using the same car passes now. So we have had the IRA, Islamic fundamentalism, 9/11, bombs on the underground and buses, and they are still using the same passes on the Mall—so they tell me.
	Anyway, to get back to the Bill—[Hon. Members: “Yeah!”] I know they didn’t really like those stories anyway and we have only got a couple of minutes left. What I wanted to say is that I have always taken the view that the royal family cannot be regal and common at the same time. I thought when television came in they wanted to appear regal on the one hand but also to be like “Coronation Street” people on the other. So they got on the telly and they were playing those games and all the rest of it. I think that the Queen was badly advised. She should have kept control of them. If I had been on the advisers list, I would have told her that. But I wasn’t. I know that Charles wanted to meet me one day, and that Nicholas—well, whatever seat he stands for, he sits over there—who was a friend of Charles, said to me, “Charles wants to speak to you”. I said, “Why?” He said, “He thinks you’re very interesting.” I said, “Why, has he stopped talking to plants?” [Interruption.] It’s a friendly remark!
	Anyway, I believe that at that time support waned quite remarkably. I think it is a bit higher now, but I still believe it is not the 90-odd per cent. that some people imagine it. It is more like 60:40. I do not accept either that the Queen does not have powers. I was here in 1974, during the strike and the “miners’ election”, when Heath said, “You either vote for me or you vote for the miners.” The truth is that Labour won a marginal victory. We had a tiny number of seats more than the Tories.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. This is going to come as a great disappointment to you, Mr Skinner, but you cannot talk this Bill out because at 6 o’clock, I am going to put the question. If you could now refer specifically to the Bill, we would be grateful.

Dennis Skinner: I know I have talked out several Bills in the past, but I did it by moving a debate on the writ for the Brecon and Radnor by-election and the Richmond by-election and all the rest of it. But now you have stopped me doing it, Mr Deputy Speaker. What I have to say is that here we are at a time of welfare reform, inflation and all the rest of it, and suddenly, in one day, the House of Commons changes its whole attitude and says, “We’ve got enough money. The royal family need more to live on.” And what does it do? It votes for it. Well, if I can find another teller, I’ll be voting against. Thank you very much.

Thomas Docherty: I am not sure whether I have more trepidation when I follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob
	Rees-Mogg) or when I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). It is slightly ironic that we are having this debate in one of the royal palaces, and perhaps we should recognise the contribution that the royal household makes to the upkeep of some of the rather expensive parts of this building. It is probably worth reflecting on some of the more turbulent debates that the House has had with the royal family about their financing over the centuries—
	Debate interrupted (Order, this day).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair ( Order, this day ), That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Question agreed to.
	Bill  accordingly  read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Draft financial services Bill (joint committee)

Motion made,
	That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 21 June, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the draft Financial Services Bill presented to both Houses on 16 June (Cm 8083).
	That a Select Committee of six Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Financial Services Bill presented to both Houses on 16 June (Cm 8083).
	That the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 1 December 2011.
	That the Committee shall have power—
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report from time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
	That Mr Nicholas Brown, Mr David Laws, Mr Peter Lilley, David Mowat, Mr George Mudie and Mr David Ruffley be members of the Committee.—( James Duddridge.)

Hon. Members: Object.

sittings of the House (19 July) (No. 2)

Ordered,
	That, on Tuesday 19 July, the House shall meet at 11.30 am and references to specific times in the Standing Orders of this House shall apply as if that day were a Wednesday.— ( James Duddridge.)

Business of the House (18 July)

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Monday 18 July, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the Motions in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the appointment and pay of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England not later than one hour after their commencement; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—( James Duddridge.)

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Land Registration

That the draft Land Registration (Network Access) (Amendment) Rules 2011, which were laid before this House on 7 June, be approved.—( James Duddridge.)
	Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Draft EU Budget

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 11779/11 and No. 11775/11 relating to the preparation of the EU Budget, and an unnumbered explanatory memorandum dated 27 May 2011 from HM Treasury on the Statement of Estimates of the Commission for 2012 (preparation of the 2012 Draft Budget); recalls the agreement at the October 2010 European Council that it is essential that the European Union budget and the forthcoming Multi-annual Financial Framework reflect the consolidation efforts being made by Member States to bring deficit and debt onto a more sustainable path; notes that in spite of this agreement the Commission’s proposal has come at a time of particular austerity in domestic budgets across the EU; agrees that the 4.9 per cent increase in payment appropriations proposed for 2012 by the Commission is therefore unacceptable; notes that UK contributions to the EU budget have also risen in recent years due to the 2005 decision to give away parts of the UK rebate; supports the Government’s objective to deliver the terms of the language secured by the Prime Minister’s December letter that the growth of European public spending must be consistent with the considerable efforts made by the Member States to bring their public spending under control and that action to curb budget growth in 2011 should be progressively stepped up in 2012; and so supports the Government in seeking significant savings to the Commission’s proposals across all headings and its strenuous efforts to limit the growth of payments to below inflation.—( James Duddridge.)
	Question agreed to.

Privacy and injunctions (joint committee)

Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 27 June, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider privacy and injunctions, including:
	(1) how the statutory and common law on privacy and the use of anonymity injunctions and super-injunctions has operated in practice;
	(2) how best to strike the balance between privacy and freedom of expression, in particular how best to determine whether there is a public interest in material concerning people’s private and family life;
	(3) issues relating to the enforcement of anonymity injunctions and superinjunctions, including the internet, cross-border jurisdiction within the United Kingdom, parliamentary privilege and the rule of law; and
	(4) issues relating to media regulation in this context, including the role of the Press Complaints Commission and the Office of Communications (OFCOM);
	That the Committee should report by 29 February 2012;
	That a Select Committee of thirteen Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords;
	That the Committee shall have power—
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report from time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
	That Mr Ben Bradshaw, Mr Robert Buckland, Philip Davies, George Eustice, Paul Farrelly, Martin Horwood, Eric Joyce, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Penny Mordaunt, Yasmin Qureshi, Ms Gisela Stuart, Mr John Whittingdale and Nadhim Zahawi be members of the Committee.—(James Duddridge.)

PETITION
	 — 
	High Speed Rail

Andrea Leadsom: I wish to present a petition.
	The Petition of residents of South Northamptonshire and others,
	Declares that the Petitioners are strongly opposed to the proposed High Speed Railway; declares that the Petitioners believe it to be a massive waste of money; declares that it will destroy miles of beautiful countryside, thousands of homes and villages; and further declares that there is no business case or environmental case for this railway and upgrading existing rail networks is a better alternative.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reconsider its support for the proposed High Speed Railway and support the upgrading of existing rail networks.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000944]

EARLY INTERVENTION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Vara.)

Graham Allen: Early intervention not only requires no new net public expenditure, it is also the biggest deficit reduction programme that we have. If we implement it properly, it will produce results beyond the Chancellor’s wildest dreams. We need to change our default public expenditure culture, which is one of late intervention, to one of early intervention. Late intervention is expensive and not very effective. Early intervention, by contrast, is inexpensive and highly effective.
	I shall give the House an example. Delivering the intensive health visiting service of the family nurse partnership to 115 teen mums and their babies in my constituency costs about the same as putting three 16-year-olds in a secure unit for a year—an average of two of whom, incidentally, will reoffend. Family nurse partnership services delivered in the first years of life can reduce the number of arrests at the age of 15 by 80%. So dealing with several hundred individuals and doing so effectively costs roughly the same amount as failing to deal effectively with three young people, 16-year-olds, later on in life.

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Gentleman and I are in huge agreement on this subject. Does he agree that more than 80% of long-term prison inmates suffer from problems that stem back to early infant attachment?

Graham Allen: Indeed, and the costs are absolutely enormous and continuing. They continue through the generations, whereas one effective early intervention costs only for the one occasion, does not need to be repeated and proves to be very effective.
	I make many recommendations in my recent report for Her Majesty’s Government, “Early intervention: Smart Investment, Massive Savings”. The ones I would particularly like to talk about tonight involve the Treasury. I ask the Minister for her first thoughts on these recommendations. I am very grateful for the assistance I received from the Chancellor, the whole Treasury team and, indeed, Treasury officials—and, above all, from the Minister herself. She helped me in various ways—although the faults in the report are entirely my own—to make the second report a practical and pragmatic programme of work rather than a flight of fancy.
	There are no magic bullets. This is all about a practical, long-running and consistent effort to try to bring social and emotional capability to our babies, children and young people, which will repay us over and over again throughout the life cycle, as we avoid the costs associated with drink and drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, a lifetime on welfare benefits, educational underachievement, and so on and so forth. That benefit can come from just a little bit of early investment.
	The key relevant recommendations to the Treasury concern the comprehensive spending review; rebalancing central Government spending from late to early intervention; a Whitehall task and finish group, which I shall talk about; a serious proposal for departmental
	payments, introducing a payment-by-results system effectively across Whitehall; liberating our local authorities so that they can be our partners in pursuing early intervention policies; and using the 2012 Budget to incentivise early intervention investment. I propose to look at each of those in turn.
	First, I have suggested that the Treasury consider theming the next CSR around early intervention. The usual cross-departmental effort that goes in ahead of every CSR should be directed at early intervention across all Departments. That includes the research programme and the evaluation, which should be used to assess what is being spent on early intervention by Departments, thus providing a baseline from which we can judge the costs, benefits and potential savings to taxpayers from early intervention policies and programmes.
	This CSR preparation should also include commissioning long-range surveys, studies and longitudinal programmes so that we can add daily to the evidence base for early intervention and its role in saving massive amounts of taxpayers’ money from being captured by the long-term costs of failure. Above all, doing this in the CSR will symbolise the Government’s approach and the switch in philosophy to give strong signals to Departments throughout Whitehall and indeed in local areas. We will thus be demonstrating that we are moving from talking the talk to walking the walk.
	I want to put on the record that it is evident from the discussions I have had with all parties and with all party leaders, including the Prime Minister, that there is a very strong desire to move—incrementally, admittedly—across this divide between our typical, traditional late intervention policies and early intervention. This is not just to save money; it will also help to make good many of the social failures that arise because we do not tackle problems early enough and let them get rooted before we start to invest money in them—often too little, too late.
	The second issue is the rebalancing of funding in Departments. It is easy to demand big switches of financing from one place to another, but that is a pipe dream which we did not entertain in the report. What we did consider was the fact that we have spent billions of pounds, decade after decade, often with only marginal impacts on, in particular, the social and emotional capabilities of babies, children and young people, especially those in poorer areas and constituencies such as mine. We discussed how we might push back the spending and personnel juggernaut of late intervention, and start to invest, gently and incrementally, in early intervention.
	A great deal of evidence was given to my inquiry. One of our proposals is a gentle shift—within departmental budgets, and involving no extra money—from late to early intervention. Following discussions with Departments, I propose—modestly, I hope—not a top-slicing of budgets to a pooled early intervention fund run by one Department or another, but a slow, incremental migration of funding, within existing budgets, from late to early intervention. I proposed that it should amount to just 1% a year, which is incredibly modest. It would be possible to move such spending slowly and relatively easily, and no additional spending by Departments would be required.
	In education, for instance, an obvious way of using an existing function, organisation or budget head would be through the early intervention grant itself, which currently amounts to £2.2 billion. That would be a good
	home for the start of a transition from late to early intervention. Similarly, £55 billion is spent on children and children’s services in the United Kingdom. A minor adjustment, in percentage terms, made incrementally on an annual basis could begin to shift us from the costs of failure to investment in the success of our babies, children and young people.
	The Department of Health, the Home Department and the Ministry of Justice already have machinery for such an incremental change. They run prevention programmes of various sorts, all of which could be steadily and progressively geared up. Such a reorientation of internal spending could also provide some of the resources needed to pay investors for the outcome-based contracts to which I referred in my report, and about which I shall say more later. It could be described as payment by results.
	I also propose the establishment of a task and finish group. This may sound an internal, dry subject, but in preparing my report I discovered that although tremendous work is going on throughout Whitehall in different Departments, it is not always joined up; it does not always connect. People do not always know what the next Department is doing, for one reason or another. That is not a criticism of anyone working in those Departments or on those programmes—on the contrary, I was very impressed by the way in which all Departments set about their work—but it is a criticism of the fact that no Governments have co-ordinated such action to the level that I would like to see, a level that would add value if people all worked together.
	I have suggested that the existing Cabinet Social Justice Committee should be given more teeth, and that it should have a task and finish group—perhaps with an independent chair, but that is a matter for Government to decide—which could offer an independent eye, and promote Government change via the Committee. Through consistency, long-termism and progress-chasing, it could achieve, through Whitehall, some of the important objectives and milestones that the Government may choose to set in the early intervention strategy that I proposed in my report.
	Such a group should, as a matter of course, report to all party leaders to maintain what I hope is the helpful benchmark that has been set of establishing this as a non-party issue. I am delighted to pay tribute to those Members of all parties who have taken this issue so seriously, and the fact that the three main party leaders have kindly said good things about both the first and second reports underlines my belief that this is a non-party issue. Indeed, they have supplied quotes, expressing embarrassingly kind sentiments about the philosophy of early intervention, for the back page of each of the reports. What we now need to do is make a practical proposition, and I hope we can put into effect my recommendation of establishing an effective task and finish group.
	Another Treasury-oriented recommendation is our proposal about the Treasury, Departments and local areas introducing a proper payments-by-results system, so that benefits can accrue to central and local government for investing in the right package of policies and getting external investors interested in this field. Central Government need to play a role in co-commissioning, or co-paying for, the outcomes set by local areas. Her Majesty’s Treasury and other Departments would therefore
	need to work at putting in place methods of accounting to ensure that future payments based on successful local outcomes are honoured. It is obviously a matter of great concern that local authorities feel, rightly or wrongly, that if they are successful they will be penalised by the withdrawal of other grants or financial assistance. When drawing up the contracts and talking to local authorities about this issue, we need to make it clear that their payments will be honoured when they reach the endgame of the payment-by-results exercise.
	In my report I have outlined a number of areas where local authorities have an important role to play. I do not have time to go into them now, but one that would bear examination is the possibility of looking again at issuing a capitalisation directive to councils that will perhaps allow up to £500 million-worth of early intervention spending to be capitalised, provided that it is funded through the local bond market. If one accepts, as the Government and the main political parties now seem to, that early intervention represents an essential investment in human capital for future generations, there is a strong case for allowing local authorities to finance that by using money in the same way as they would to finance a bridge or a building.
	The final recommendation that the Treasury may want to think about now that my report is in the public domain is to do with the 2012 Budget and whether the Treasury can assess properly the possibilities of incentivising early intervention investment. It was clear from my review that tax incentives would be a popular and effective way of incentivising early intervention and social investment more generally. The possibility of creating a market in social investment and social finance is a prize indeed, and if we manage to create a social finance market within, perhaps, 10 years, that will be a measure of our success.
	Of course everyone would like to have an incentive. I did not see it as my role to provide a set of demands to which Government had to say yes or no. However, I would like there to be a serious exercise before the Budget, so that the Government examine all possible ways of sucking into early intervention investment philanthropic, ethical business and retail investors and wholesale investors. That would be extremely helpful. I will say no more than let us learn from the creativity in other countries, such as tax credits in the Netherlands and Australia, and money to contribute to social impact bond payments in the USA. The US President has introduced rule changes so that money can be committed over longer periods than is commonplace in public contracts.
	In conclusion, the Treasury often says, rightly, that having less money can drive us all to be more creative and to challenge the old ways and the old rules. One of the threads in the report is that this should apply equally to Government thinking, and to Treasury thinking in particular. Money is scarce, so ideas on how better to spend existing public funds should be encouraged and new sources of funding should be incentivised. Due diligence, which is commonplace in the private sector, should now be used at all levels of government to question the comparative costs of wasteful, late intervention versus early intervention alternatives. Levels of savings to be achieved should be an integral part of all public
	investment calculations. Short-term cuts that jeopardise massive long-term returns should, of course, be avoided. Rules and methods of working established in a different era, in a different public expenditure environment, need to be reviewed.
	If we can do that, and if our friends in the Treasury can take some of these proposals seriously—as I know they would, as they made a strong contribution to my review—we will be on the verge of changing the spending culture in our country, moving from wasteful, expensive spending when problems are deep-seated to pre-emptive and preventive spending to help babies, children and young people develop the social and emotional capability that will see them realising their potential in the same way that we want to see our children realising theirs. This is an important field. In many ways, it is a slow burner, not one that heralds dramatic change. This is a field in which there must be a serious commitment to change public policy on behalf of all parties. If we do that, not only will the benefits to those children be immense, but the repayments to the taxpayer will be massive.

Justine Greening: There are a number of Adjournment debates that I might have a chance to respond to as a Treasury Minister, but of all of them, this is probably the one in which I would be most keen to participate. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has done a great deal of work in an area that for many years was debated on moral grounds—“What’s the right thing to do?” That was absolutely right, but his contribution has been to say why it is in everybody’s interest to address these issues and, in particular, to focus on early intervention. That work will have longevity in this place and beyond. Indeed, I think that I speak for Members across the House when I pay tribute to the work that he has done, not just in contributing to this Government’s policy, but in the years prior to that.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about some of the recommendations in the recent, second—and final—report on his review of early intervention. As he knows, we are still looking at those recommendations. I shall not pre-empt the conclusion, but I want to emphasise one thing. He said that he hoped that Ministers would take those recommendations seriously, and I can absolutely assure him that we do. In the time left, I shall try to respond to as many of his points as possible, but I have no doubt that in the weeks, months and perhaps even years to come, we will continue to debate these issues both inside this Chamber and outside it.
	I agree that the case for investment in preventive services is clear. As the hon. Gentleman set out in his speech and in his review of early intervention, there is a clear argument. That argument shows that the more that we can do in government and the more that those working with children can do to intervene earlier, the more likely children are both to reach their full potential, as he said, and to develop well both socially and emotionally. Not only are the costs of not doing so significant for them as developing people, but there are financial costs for the rest of society, as he pointed out, including in local communities. So the costs of not tackling these issues are significant and they do contribute to an ongoing negative cycle.
	The hon. Gentleman discussed just some of the examples in this area. Let us consider that of children on the edge of care. A three-year study of multi-systemic therapy at the Brandon centre in Camden, which he is probably aware of, has shown that cost savings ranged between £1,200 and £8,900 per family intervention, in addition to there being a reduced risk of offending and family conflict. Data from 10 of those multi-systemic therapy pilots for children on the edge of care or custody indicate that, by the end of the intervention, custody or care was avoided for 90% of children who had been at risk of those outcomes. Of course, children who avoid care are more likely to succeed academically, and are therefore more likely to earn more and lead more fulfilling lives. That is just one example of how powerful early intervention approaches can be.
	I want to discuss public spending, because the hon. Gentleman talked about the next spending review being based on the theme of early intervention and said that, in preparation for this, the balance of central Government spending should be shifted by 1% per year from late to early intervention. One of the things that I want to say to him is that in the year and a bit that I have spent as a Treasury Minister I have found that the key to this is something that may seem boring but actually becomes incredibly important. He talked about the need for an evidence base, and I think that he has created that with the work that he has done, as has some of the work carried out in other countries. One of the challenges for the Government is to ensure that we have a good internal evidence base on where our money is being spent.
	The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the children and families taskforce that was set up by the Prime Minister, which informed some of our spending review. One of the exercises involved looking at where the portfolio mix of spend currently is, for example, on early years provision. That was not perhaps as easy a task for us as it ought to have been. One of the key things that the Treasury is now doing is progressing what seemed like mundane “accountantesque” projects, such as putting in place a chart of accounts and upgrading the Combined Online Information System—COINS—database so that it is actually one that we can use to analyse data. The “themes” that the hon. Gentleman describes are part of a broader challenge the Government face in understanding where the money is going; we need to understand our normal items of spend and the aim of them. That will give us a chance better to join up the oversight across spending as it happens in different Departments.
	I talked about the Prime Minister’s children and families taskforce and in the 2010 spending review we did allocate significant resources to support early intervention. The hon. Gentleman talked about the value of the family nurse partnership programme. We are recruiting 4,200 health visitors and expanding that programme. Of course we have also established the early intervention grant. In doing so, we intend to signal the importance of this agenda that we all care about so much. We have committed to maintain a network of Sure Start children’s centres and, as he knows, to expand the free early education entitlement to disadvantaged two-year-olds. We are also putting in place other measures such as the fairness premium. I hope that we will be able, perhaps in a more sophisticated
	way, to understand where Government spending is going in relation to early intervention and some of the complex aspects of early intervention. I hope that the projects that we now have running across government should give us a much better chance of doing that as we approach the next spending review. As the hon. Gentleman proposes, we will continue to push on that within the Treasury and across government to make sure that we do understand the costs and benefits of different policies and programmes, both individually and collectively.
	One thing that he referred to less in his speech, but which is important, is coming out of the work on early years and that is the need to continue investment. Once initial investments are made, they should be followed up with the individual.
	I know that I am going to run out of time, but I want to mention community budgeting and the need to consider budgets from the perspective of the individual who receives the services rather than constantly considering them in silos. We want to address that.
	The hon. Gentleman talked briefly about tax measures and he is right to flag up that we should not lose sight of the fact that much of the early intervention agenda has involved money transfers. For us, one challenge is considering how that money is invested, whether we have alternatives and how some of the services and programmes he talks about stack up in terms of value for money for the public and those who receive them when set against some of the more traditional methods we have used, such as income transfers between families, the Government and individuals.
	The agenda is very exciting and I know that the Government will have the chance to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s second report. I look forward to taking forward some of his suggestions and developing them.

Graham Allen: Does the hon. Lady realise that she might have three more minutes and that the debate does not need to stop at 6.30pm? I know she has further notes prepared.

Justine Greening: I did not realise that. I am delighted because it means I will be able to get through a few more of the comments I wanted to make.
	As I mentioned briefly, the agenda is not just about money but about the quality of public services delivered on the ground. The hon. Gentleman talked about joined-up government and we must focus more on that. Community budgeting will help as will stopping ring-fencing at local authority level, but there are broader challenges in how we knit together national and local government policy at that local level. The work he is doing could feed into some of those thoughts.
	Just the other week, on 11 July, we published our “Open Public Services” White Paper, which set out the Government’s vision for excellent services. The principles that we have set out of choice, decentralisation, diversity, fair access and accountability will start to open up local authorities’ ability to deliver services more innovatively. The contribution to this agenda made by the charities and organisations we all come across—perhaps the hon. Gentleman more than other Members—will be better able to be made with a more open approach to public service delivery than we have perhaps had in the past.
	I also want to talk briefly about a couple of other aspects. The hon. Gentleman talked about the independent foundation he wants to set up and we very much welcome that as it can play an important role in this whole process. He also mentioned the use of innovative financing mechanisms and he was absolutely right. Again, that is one of those boring but important aspects of the agenda. We need to unlock Government financing so that it
	does not hinder the right projects. He also mentioned payment by results, which is one thing on which we are keen to push ahead across government.
	I can see that I have now run out of time—
	House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).